BURTON. “PUBLIC LIBRARY
SEP {939
DETROINW
The American Genealogist
Whole Number 62 October, 1939 Vol. XVI, No. 2
CONTENTS
PAGE
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL.—Joanna C. Colcord 65
WAS KATHERINE SCOTT A DAUGHTER OF REV. FRANCIS
MARBURY OF LONDON ?—Meredith B. Colket, Jr. ........005. 81
NOTES ON SOME IMMIGRANTS FROM OTTERY ST. MARY,
DEVON, ENGLAND. SEARLE.—Mary Lovering Holman ...... 88
THE THOMAS FAMILY OF LONDON, ENGLAND (Maternal
Ancestry of Lieutenant Robert Feake).—Clarence Almon Torrey.. |. 95
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS.—Herbert F.
Seversmith, III. The Norton Family of Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire 101
HANNAH (FELTON) (ENDICOTT) PROCTOR.—Winifred Lov-
MARRIAGES IN SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE, BY REV. ABNER
NOTES
Porter.—John Insley Coddington 122
Prudden.—S. Allyn Peck and John Insley Coddington ........... 122
BOOK REVIEWS.—Gilbert H. Doane ....-.cccccccccvcesceceveee 124
QUERIES AND ANSWERS.—Philip M. Smith ........... poosesce 187
Published by Donald Lines Jacobus, Box 3032, Westville Station, New Haven, Conn.
Printed by The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, New Haven, Conn.
Current volume (four issues): $6.00. Single issues: $1.50 each.
|
|
THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Editor-in-Chief
Donap Lines JAcosus, M.A., New Haven, Connecticut
Associate Editor
MerepiTH B. Jr., Esg., Washington, D. C.
Book Review Editor
H. Doanz, B.A., Madison, Wisconsin
Query Department Editor
M. Smiru, B.A., Washington, D. C.
Contributing Editors
ArtTuur ApAms, Pu.D., F.8.G., F.S8.A., Hartford, Connecticut
Homer W. Brarnarp, Esq., Amherst, Massachusetts
JouN I. Coppineton, M.A., Cambridge, Massachusetts
Wa ter E. Corsrn, Esq., Florence, Massachusetts
Merron T. Goopricu, M.A., Keene, New Hampshire
Mrs. Mary Lovertne Hotman, Watertown, Massachusetts
WINIFRED LovertNG HotMAN, 8.B., Watertown, Massachusetts
Mrs. Minnor Liunestept, Rockland, Maine
G. AnpREws Moriarty, A.M., LL.B., F.S.A., Bristol, R. I.
H. Minor Pirman, A.B., LL.B., Bronxville, N. Y.
Mrs. Wiuu1am D. Scranton (Helen D. Love), New Haven,
Connecticut
Hersert SeversmitH, M.A., Washington, D. C.
CLARENCE A. Torrey, PH.B., Dorchester, Massachusetts
Mrs. James T. Warts, Washington, D. C.
The Editor-in-Chief is solely responsible for the financial liability and the
general — of THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, and his own articles. While
every
competent genealogists, neither the magazine nor the Editor-in-Chief will
be responsible for errors of fact or opinion on the part of contributors.
The responsibility of members of the editorial staff, as well as of casual
contributors, is limited to articles published under their own names,
ort will be made tc accept and publish only reliable data from
Copyright, 1939
BY
DonaLp LINES JAcoBuUS
|
|
|
The American Genealogist
Whole Number 62 Volume XVI, No. 2
October, 1939
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL
By Joanna C. CoLcorp, of Mount Vernon, New York.
[Note on English origin. The parentage and birthplace of Edward Col-
cord are mysteries which years of searching have failed to unravel. He was
undoubtedly of English birth. At one time he returned to England and,
according to his own testimony, was in ‘‘tingmouth’’ (Teignmouth), Devon,
in 1646.
The name in various spellings was common in south of England. Libby,
quoting probably from the Banks Manuscripts, shows that at Bovey Tracy,
on the Teign above Teignmouth, one Edward Colchard, son of Richard, was
baptized in 1635, after our subject was known to have come to New England.
The Banks Manuscripts’ give the marriage license of a John Colchard, Jr.,
of Brudninch, co. Devon, and Joanna Moore, on May 24, 1610; and also the
marriage of an Edward Colscott of Devon and Joane Gubb on January 28,
1614/15. In the probate registry of the Bishop of Exeter, under date of
1647, the will of Edward. Colscott of Goodleigh is on file, bequeathing to
wife Joane, but mentioning no children. Dudley, in a pamphlet entitled
**In Whelewright’s Day,’’ asserts that Edward Colcord ‘‘has been con-
nected with an inheritance’’ near Exeter in Devon, but no evidence is
available to support this statement.
In early Colonial records, the name Colcord was often written Coleott, and
there are indications that the name was pronounced thus, or even ‘‘ Colkit,’’
in those days. It may be a variant of either Collacott or Colquitt, names
widespread in England. One Richard Collicut, who married Joane Thorne
in Barnstaple, co. Devon, in 1627, was an early New England settler; but
there is nothing in the records to associate his family with that of Edward
Coleord. Leaving these clews to future historians of the Colcord family,
we let Miss Colcord tell her story.—M. B. C.]
Edward Colcord, the New Hampshire settler, was the ancestor
of all of the Coleords in America, and, through his eight daugh-
ters, of countless numbers who do not bear the family name.
He has received scant and somewhat contemptuous treatment
at the hands of such historians and genealogists as have men-
tioned him, and no adequate exploration has been made of the
causes which might underlie his erratic and unconforming
behavior.
1 The Banks Manuscripts at the Rare Book Room in the Library of Congress.
2 Other wills are listed in Fry’s ‘‘Devonshire Wills and Administrations’ (British Record
Society), and are not known to have been read by American genealogists.
|
|
|
|
66 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Dow, in his History of Hampton, N. H., in writing of the dis-
pute over the division of the town’s common lands in 1646, says
of Colcord ;
Great bitterness of feeling prevailed, originating, indeed, from different
sources, but fomented and cherished, to a considerable extent, by a single
individual, a person of acknowledged ability, shrewd, calculating, of indom-
itable energy—but, in the estimation of many, an unprincipled demagogue ;
one who knew the law well, as his friends claimed—for he had both friends
and followers—but who, in the estimation of his opponents, was so fond of
litigation, and so constant in his attendance upon the courts, as a party
witness, a litigant or an agent, that, in their quaint language, he was said
to be ‘*more meeter to follow the courts than to follow his work.’’
As a basis for these strictures, Dow picks out one of the minor
incidents in Edward’s turbulent career, which was consistent
enough with his lifelong pattern of resistance to what he felt to
be injustice and oppression, but which seems insufficient on which
to build up such a structure of condemnation.
Alonzo Quint, the New Hampshire historian, disposes of
Edward briefly as ‘‘in lawsuits pretty much all the time. He
was in bad odor with all parties by turns . . . but was liked by
some very respectable people.’’
Dudley® says ‘‘he was the violent character of the Piscataqua
region during its early years of settlement, with unsocial man-
ners that became more objectionable as he grew older. . . . A
natural rebel against authority . . . ever shifting from place
to place, he seems to have created trouble wherever he went ;”’
and Libby* calls Coleord ‘‘one of the best, and to many most
unfavorably, known New Englanders of his day.’’
Fitts, in his History of Newfields, is a little kinder. ‘‘Some
of the trouble arose,’’ he says, ‘‘from the fact that he was a
sturdy opponent of Massachusetts, up to a certain date... .
Notwithstanding his litigiousness, he was one of the most promi-
nent men in the Province.”’
There is ample evidence in the court records of the day to
support this chorus of animadversion. Unfortunately, they are
the only records extant, since letter-writing and journal-keeping
belong mostly to a later era. Any attempt to examine Edward
Coleord’s career in the light of modern theories of human
behavior must rest, therefore, on incomplete and more or less
biased documentation.
He first appears in 1631 as a very young man in the vicinity
of the Piscataqua in New Hampshire, when, according to Hub-
bard, the earliest historian of New England, there were but
three houses in all that region. He seems to have received a
good education for the times in the old country; although not a
Dudley, A. T., “In Whelewright’s Day.”
* Libby, C. T., “Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire.”
|
-
|
~
~
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL
lawyer, he was fond of drawing legal papers and was often
called upon or deputized himself to represent others in court.
The petition in Volume XVII of New Hampshire State Papers®
is one of the few holograph documents which he left. It shows in
handwriting and phraseology a degree of education which could
scarcely have been acquired in the backwoods community to
which he came.
He is said to have come over as a minor employee of the ‘‘ Bris-
tol Merchants,’’ and may have accompanied Capt. Thomas Wig-
gin in the Pide Cow on the oceasion of the latter’s first visit as
agent to the Hilton station at Dover Point. No records exist of
Edward’s early years there, but by 1638 he was an experienced
scout and Indian trader, able to conduct negotiations with the
Indians in their own language.
Much uncertainty exists as to the date of his birth. His
depositions as to his own age may be tabulated as follows:
Year Age Birth Age in
deposed given date 1631 Authority
1647 43 1604 27 Dover Court Records; in New England
Hist. and Gen, Register 23: 167
1659 43 1616 15 N. H. Probate Records, Coneord, N. H.
1669 54 1615 16 Pope, Pioneers of Massachusetts
1673 56 1617 14 Coffin, in NEHGR 6: 248
1674 59 1615 16 Coffin, in NEHGR 6; 248
1676 61 1615 16 Coffin, in NEHGR 6; 248
1676 67 1609 22 N. H. State Papers Vol. XVII, 522
The last two depositions are evidently taken from the same
source, and one printed version or the other is in error. As
reproduced in the N. H. State Papers, the deposition went on to
say that he had ‘‘been in the country 46 years’’—or since about
1630; and this checks with the known facts. Many indications
point to his having been born earlier than 1616; his good educa-
tion for the times could hardly have been acquired if he had
come to the wilderness a lad of fifteen, and he must have been of
age to perform some useful service if he was employed at the
Hilton station in 1631. He must have been a man of some
maturity and experience by 1638; for in that year he conducted
negotiations with the Indians for the Rev. John Wheelwright,
and witnessed the deed between him and the ‘‘Sagamore of
Pascataqua’’ for the site of Wheelwright’s Antinomian colony
at Exeter.
On the other hand, boys matured early in those days; and a
young man of 22 may have had experience which warranted
entrusting him with such a responsibility. His marriage, occur-
ring about 1640, fits in with the theory of the later birth-date ;
and finally there is his own several-times repeated testimony
5 Page 607.
!
| =
|
68 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
which would indicate that he was under seventeen in 1631. The
stronger probability appears to be that he was born about 1615.
We have then, a lad of vigor, ability and promise, who had
been given a fair education by whoever brought him up, and
then shipped off to the wilderness alone and at an early age to
fend for himself. Under what circumstances he came is not
known. Whether some sense of injustice, of friendlessness and
lack of emotional security had already been implanted in child-
hood, cannot be discovered at this date. We can only say that
disturbances as prolonged and deep-seated as those displayed by
Edward Coleord are usually found in modern experience to be
rooted in deprivations of status, security or affection in early
childhood. If Edward was a boy whom no one wanted to remain
as part of a family group, it would go a long way toward explain-
ing his subsequent divergent behavior.
To understand the arena in which his life was passed, it is
necessary to know something of early New Hampshire govern-
ment and land tenure. The Piscataqua settlement, where
Edward first appears in 1631, was established under the Plym-
outh Company at Dover Point in 1623 by Edward Hilton, called
the ‘‘Father of New Hampshire.’’ It was probably intended
as headquarters for a fur-trading and fishing industry, Hilton
and his brother William being members of the Guild of Fish-
mongers in London. It proved to be not a paying proposition
as an outlying factory ; and in 1630, after a reorganization of the
Plymouth Company by a group commonly alluded to as the
‘*Bristol Merchants,’’ Captain Thomas Wiggin was sent as their
agent to look into the possibilities of colonizing the place as a
new settlement.
In the meantime, overlapping grants, particularly the Laconia
grant to Captain John Mason in 1629, had clouded the title to
the property. In order to protect the occupants on the Pisea-
taqua, a new charter was sought and secured in 1630 by the
Plymouth Company, which was called the Swampscott Patent.
Under this charter, Wiggin went to England and returned in
the James in 1633, bringing a party of thirty settlers, most of
whose names are unknown except by inference. Wiggin and
Hilton proceeded to grant out the lands for settlement, but the
date of partition cannot be established, since the early records
of Dover have been destroyed. In 1642, the records show
Edward Coleord and 23 others in possession of 20-acre farms
40 rods wide, running back from the Piscataqua River for 80
rods.
According to Scales’ History of Dover, Edward Colcord’s first
home was on the eastern shore of Dover Point, a few hundred
feet from the ‘‘Fore River.’’ It was next to that of Philip
Chesley, and stood about half a mile north of the cove where
|
|
|
|
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL 69
the James landed her immigrants in 1633. This low-lying tract
is now thickly overgrown with alders.
It was chiefly altercations regarding the title to these lands,
and to those later acquired by himself and his friends, which
made Edward Coleord so many bitter enemies, and kept him in
hot water for the rest of his life. He seems to have been the
organizer of one group against the subsequent claims of other
settlers who secured titles under other auspices, or who simply
‘*squatted’’ on the land and defied anyone to dislodge them. In
those days of rapid settlement, ‘‘claim-jumping’’ was rampant,
and it is unnecessary to point out the vindictive nature of dis-
putes which arise over the possession of real-estate.
Hubbard, who disliked him greatly, says that Coleord was ‘‘for
want of a better, for some years together, [after 1631] chosen
governor of the plantations about Dover,’’ but no evidence has
been found to support this statement. In 1642, he served as
Deputy to the General Court at Boston, and he was appointed
one of a commission of three magistrates to ‘‘end differentces
under 20s,’’* but was replaced by another in the following year,
and thereafter appears to have held no public office in Dover.
Previous to this, however, in 1640, he signed the ‘‘ Dover Com-
bination,’’ the first instrument of self-government on the Pisca-
taqua, as one of the grantees of Dover Point. The following
year, he signed the petition of the men of Dover not to be
annexed by Massachusetts Bay. The New Hampshire colony
was not religious or sectarian, but purely commercial in its
foundations. Exeter, although a religious colony, represented
a liberal movement, and a secession from Puritanism. Massa-
chusetts’ domination of government by religion found no echo
in New Hampshire; the Hiltons were supporters of the estab-
lished Church of England, and Wiggin sided with Massachusetts
for political gain rather than from religious conviction. In sign-
ing this petition, Coleord took sides against his former chief,
Wiggin, and the ground was laid for the later enmity between
the two men.
Coleord probably resided for a short time in the new settle-
ment of Weconnet, now Hampton, which was founded in 1638
by the Massachusetts Bay Colony about twelve miles south of
Dover Point. Thither had come from Salem Robert Page and
his wife Lucy, together with their children and Ann Wadd (or
Nudd).
Years later, in June, 1673, Edward calls Robert Page ‘‘my
brother’’:
Edward Calleord of Hampton, in consideration of great care, love and
respect which my brother, Robert Page, deacon of ye church of Hampton,
hath manifested to me, my wife, and children in receiving my housing and
*N. H. 8S. P. Vol. I, pages 161-171.
|
|
|
70 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
lands in Hampton and making several disbursements for my wife and chil-
dren and now resigning sd. housing and land to me, and my family. With-
out any further consideration but payment of twenty pounds which my
deare brother Deacon Page gives for love to six of my children, viz. to my
daughters Sarah Hobbs and Mary Fifield, four pounds each, (to be paid in
one year after decease of sd. Page) and three pounds each to my four
children at home, viz. Mehitable, Samuell, Shuah and Deborah to be paid
as they shall come of age, after decease of said Page. Said Colcord, there-
fore, binds over his six acres fresh meadow, lying in ye west meadow adjoin-
ing to John Marian, etc.’
The exact relationship of the two men has proved puzzling.
Edward’s wife was named Ann. Researches by G. W. Chamber-
lain in Norfolk® proved that Robert Page had no sister Ann; and
the inference that Edward had a sister who married into this
Norfolk family is untenable, since Edward was apparently from
Devon. It is now generally conceded that Edward’s wife was
the young girl, Ann, who was listed as servant to the Pages and
aged 15 in the passenger list of the ship Rose in 1637. In the
printed records the name appears as Ann ‘‘Wadd’’ but Cham-
berlain, questioning this, suggests that ‘‘ Wadd’’ was a misread-
ing of the name Nudd. The Nudds were a Norfolk family and
are known to have been closely associated in New England with
the Pages.
With this and the further fact in mind that young relatives
were often described in Colonial shipping-lists as ‘‘servants,’’ it
seems reasonable to suppose that Lucy Page may have been born
Nudd, and that Ann was her sister.
In 1645, the town meeting at Exeter ‘‘vnamemously Agreed
vpon that Edward Coleord of Hampton (According to his desire
made Known vnto vs) Is Receiued An Inhabetant Amongst us,
and there Is giuene vnto him for his Accomodation An [land
lying between Lamprell Riuer falls and Oyster Riuer falls with
A large peece of meddow lyeing neere the foote path to Oyster
Riuore not fare from the s* Iland and as much vpland Adjoyning
to the sayd meddow as may make it vp one hundred Akers. All
w" sayd lands and meddow wee do giue vnto the sayd Edward
granteing him as full tytle to It as we may or Can giue him by
vertue of o first purchase of those lands.’’
This island was ‘‘Umbumbacucke or Edward Coleord’s
Island,’’ now called Footman’s Island. This small islet lies in
the Piscataqua River opposite Adams’ Point, in the township of
Durham. Colcord retained the land only till 1648, when he sold
it to Edwin Starbuck (later of Nantucket). It afterwards passed
into the possession of John Footman, who with his entire family,
according to local legend, was murdered by Indians on the shore
near by.
7 “Essex Institute Historical Collections’ Vol. 60.
5N. E. H. G. R. Vol. 66, page 18
—
3
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL 71
Colcord was certainly a resident and grantee of Hampton in
1646, for early in that year ‘‘he found himself greaued at the
Towns act that passed’’ during his absence from the settlement,
and with John Moulton, petitioned against ‘‘the unequall stint-
ing of the comons of Hampton.’ He ‘‘gayned many to side
with him whose speaker he was,’’ and an arbitration committee
of ‘‘indifferent gentlemen of other neighboring townes’’ was
appointed over the town’s remonstrance; but the vote was not
set aside. This is the first serious difference recorded with his
neighbors. In its course, the court imposed a fine upon him for
‘swearing a false oath.’’
He owned two of the 147 shares into which the town lands
were divided, as well as several shares of the common lands. His
house stood on what was later known as the ‘‘Marston farm,’’
owned in 1933 by Mrs. Bennett. The depression made by the
filled-in cellar of the old house is still visible between her house
and the road. In 1653, he paid taxes of 12s 10d on this property.
With others, he built a gallery in Rev. Seaborn Cotton’s meeting
house, and one of the pews in it is marked off on the original
plan to ‘‘Goody Coleord.’’ This appellation instead of
‘*Mistress’’ shows that the family had the status of commoners
and not gentlefolk.
Meanwhile, in 1645, Edward had been in trouble in Ipswich,
Mass., for ‘‘drinking wyne to the abuse of himself,’’ and two
years later he was presented at the Ipswich Court for ‘‘challeng-
ing men of their goods.’’!”
In 1647, he was in litigation about his Dover property, and
Richard Cutts, John Pickering, Hate-Evil Nutter and Richard
Waldron—former neighbors of his on the Piscataqua—were
appointed to ‘‘hear, judge and determine accounts between said
Colcord and Dover.’’ Coleord was accused by them of suborna-
tion of witnesses. By the next year, so frequently had he
appeared in the courts on others’ behalf, that the General Court
ordered that ‘‘ Edward Coleorde is not to plead any cause in this
Courte excepte it bee his own.’’ On December 21, 1648, he was
fined at the Salem Quarterly Court for being, for the second
time, ‘‘farre gone in drink.’’ The following year, he was pre-
sented in the same court for striking the marshal’s deputy,'! and
on another occasion he was fined for ‘‘telling a lye in open
court.”’
In 1650, he appears for the first time in the records of the
Province of Maine, in the new settlement of Newichawannock
(now Berwick, Maine). As the assignee of one Basil Parker,
alias Thomas Brooks, he successfully sued the ‘‘Shrewsbury
10 “Essex Antiquarian,
® This was the dispute cited by Dow.
fol. 6.
Stockpole, E. S., ‘“‘The First Permanent Settlement in Maine.”
72 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Merchants,’’ (successors to the ‘‘Bristol Merchants’’) for wages
due Parker from Colcord’s old enemy, Capt. Thomas Wiggin,
securing a verdict for £7 10s.™
In 1651, he was involved in the quarrel between Mr. Stephen
Batchelor and the town of Hampton, against which Batchelor
brought suit for back salary as minister. Acting as his agents,
Colcord and John Sanborn seized the private property of officers
of the church, a proceeding which seems to have been in accord-
ance with laws then in force. However, the court ordered the
property to be returned.”
In December, 1651, he and Humphrey Wilson leased a sawmill
in Exeter from Samuel Dudley, the annual rent to be 10,000 feet
of ‘‘sound, well-condicioned and merchantable boards of pine.’’
The next year, he, together with the Gilmans and Humphrey
Wilson, obtained permission to erect a sawmill on the Lamprey
River. The town meeting accepted him upon his request as an
‘‘Inhabetant and to come and Liue Amongst us.’’
He was chosen as one of the lot-layers in Exeter, also to oversee
payments on the church, and to call to account the owners of
sawmills who had failed to pay their taxes. In 1654, he had
bought another mill from James Wall and was hiring two men
to run it. This appears to have been one of the serener and more
prosperous periods of his career. He was at peace with his
Exeter neighbors, who trusted him with offices important to the
little settlement, and he was making money from the lumbering
then going on briskly in the region.
It is probable that he took up land at South Newmarket (New-
fields) and built a house there, the cellar of which is still to be
found, on land owned in 1933 by Mr. Robert Nixon. The road
on which it stood was closed in 1673, and Edward’s grandson
Jonathan® Coleord who came from Kingston in 1707 to occupy
the same farm, built on the new road a mile or more away. Tra-
dition states that the ‘‘old Coleord cellar’’ is the oldest in the
town; and F.. G. Peavey, local historian and topographer, believes
it to have been built by Edward and not by his descendants who
came later.
It may be noted in passing that between 1651 and 1656, dur-
ing most of which period Edward was living quietly in Exeter,
the births of no children are recorded to Ann in Hampton. This
may indicate that she joined him in Exeter, and that any chil-
dren born in that new settlement were not recorded and prob-
ably died young. Or it may indicate the beginning of separation
and domestic difficulty between them, positive evidence of which
was to occur in 1655.
Just when and why Edward Colcord left Exeter for good does
not appear in the records. He was still heavily involved with
2N.H.S. P. Vol. I, page 196.
|
|
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL 73
property in Hampton and Dover; in 1652, when Massachusetts
Bay, with the help of Capt. Wiggin, finally succeeded in extend-
ing its influence over all the settled regions of New Hampshire,
land titles became still further confused. Edward Coleord was
appointed, or assumed, the function of agent for a certain faction
of those who claimed holdings under the old Dover-Swampscott
Patent; and in 1654, there is recorded a series of documents of
particular interest as showing the grounds of the continuing
animosity against him by the persons then occupying the lands.
On May 6, 1654, Edward ‘‘Calleott,’’ together with John
Allen, Nicholas Shapleigh, John Severance, and Thomas Lake,
petitioned the General Court on behalf of themselves and other
owners under the Patent for a division of lands according to
‘*the covenant with George Willys, gent.’’ made in 1641.
A counter-petition was promptly filed :
To the Right Worshipfull the Governor and magistrates and deputies of
the Generall Court now assembled in Boston
The humble petition of the inhabitants of the town of Dover. Shewethe
that whereas your poor petitioners were taken under the government of the
Mattachusetts by the extent of the line of the Patent of the Mattachusetts,
and likewise the people there are accepted and reputed under the govern-
ment as the rest of the inhabitants under the said jurisdiction, as also a
Committee which was chosen bound out the Towne, which accordingly was
done, & afterwards was comfirmed at the Generall Courte as the Acts do
more fully declare. Therefore wee your poor petitioners do humbly crave
protection in our habitations and rights according to the laws & liberties
of the jurisdiction, & likewise that some order might be taken to restraine
such as doe disturb and molest us in our habitations by challenginge us by
patent & threateninge of us, & sayinge that wee plant upom their ground &
that we must give them such rent as they please for cuttinge grass and
timber, or else they will take all from us, so by this means the people are
many of them disquieted, not onely by the Patent but alsoe by the threats
of Edwarde Coleorde who with others of his pretended owners do report
that they have fourteen shares and that they are the greatest owners in
the Country which Patent wee conceive (under favour) will be made voyde
if it be well looked into, so hoping ever to enjoy protection within your
jurisdiction Wee shall ever pray.
This was signed by 33 residents of Dover, including many of
the original grantees, and endorsed, ‘‘ Answered upon Capt. Jo.
Allen’s petition, 1654.’’!
That Allen dropped out of the picture, and resentment cen-
tered upon Colcord, appears in the action then taken by the
General Court:
May 15, 1654.
The Court having recieued seuerall informations of many gross & abusiue
eariages of Edward Colcord in a seeming way of fraude, which if proued
as is tendred, ought to be duely & timely wittnessed agaynst, & meet pun-
ishmt inflicted, & béc this Court would not be wanting in the vse of all due
meanes for the discouery of such vile practises, it is ordered, that the
18N.H.S.P. Vol. I, pages 211 f.
|
74 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
secritary shall forthwth graunt out atachmt agt the sd Edward Colcord, in
the some of fifty pounds, binding him to be responsa!! to the next County
Court at Hampton, for such of his miscariages as is wthin mentioned, &
shalbe then pved agaynst him for that end. This Court doth hereby appoynt
& impower the recorder for the County Court at Hampton, by warrent, to
send for all such ptyes as haue profered to proue the within mentioned
abuses of Edward Colcord, & such other as he shalbe informed off can come
in & testifie agt him, and that Court to make returne to the next Court of
Assistant of what they shall find, so that justice may be administered, in
ease the Court cannot reach to due punishment.”
How the controversy was finally settled does not appear in
the records.
Meanwhile, Coleord was again involved in lawsuits in Maine.
We find from records of the York County Court held on June 29,
1654, that Edward Rishworth recovered a debt against him in
that court for £11 5s and costs.
Domestic difficulties between Edward and Ann now began to
take definite shape. Divorce was a practical impossibility ; but
on May 29, 1655, Ann took steps to protect her dower rights.
‘*In ansr to the peticon of Ann Coleord, wife of Edward Coleord,
the Court doth graunt the peticoner liberty to revjew any case
according to hir desire to recouer any of hir just rights.’’®
From 1657 to 1661, Edward appears to have sold or mortgaged
the greater part of his holdings in Hampton, and in 1659, aeccord-
ing to Folsom’s ‘‘History of Saco and Biddeford,’’ (Maine)
‘*Mr. Edward Coleott is received an inhabitant into our town of
Saco. Allso he is granted a lott in our towne lying on the s.w.
side of our river 20 poles broad, lying next N. Buly [Bur-
leigh?] Jr.”’
He was promptly in trouble among his new neighbors, and we
find him haled to the York County Court in July, 1659, for
abusing the servant of Lawrence Davis during his master’s
absence and ‘‘threatening to flyng him in the fyre.’’ Coleord
was discharged after paying court costs. He retained his prop-
erty in Saco at least until 1671, for in that year a fine of £10
was imposed on the land ‘‘for lack of improvement.’’ Saco lies
further to the eastward than York, and it is probable thet his
sojourn there was caused by the increasing difficulties in which
he found himself with the courts and with his New Hampshire
neighbors; for in 1661, divers persons in Hampton were moved
to petition the General Court in the following terms :'°
Hampton, 1661.
To the Right Worshipfull and much honored Generall Court now assembled
at Boston, the complaint of severall persons whose names are underwritten
to which many others might be added if desired.
14 “‘Records of Massachusetts,’’ Vol. III, page 347.
15 Ibid, Vol. 4, page 236.
16N. H. Hist. Mem., No. 97, A. H. Q. Many words in the petition are illegible.
«
|
|
u
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL
Humbly sheweth,
That whereas it hath been much observed and a long time taken notice of,
that Edward Colcord, a man netoriously—hath many years vitiously lived,
to himself, and disorderly toward others, what by vexatious suits and fraud-
ulent dealings in severall respects, by cheating and cozening, by wresting
mens estates out of their hands, by coller of law, by revileing their Psons,
by fomenting of strifes, by raising discord among neighbors, by false
swearing before a court, by takeing all advantages to insure—men, whereby
to get something for himself, it may seem strange, that this man hath runn
this course, without any restraint, unlese being debarred from pleading &
being made incapable of giving in testimony, but what by his fair speeches
deluding many by subtile contrivances and underhand practices he hath
hitherto evaded the hand of justice, the time was, that proceeding so farr
as to lash out against the Worshipfull Captaine Wiggin in casting foul
slanders upon him, there was an intent by some to have wrought out these
villaines to a before authority, which the sae Edward Colcord
fearing and foreseeing his condign punishment, made an escape and rann
away from the town wherein he lived, & the places adjacent quickly per-
ceived by their peace and quietness what a blessing it was to be freed from
such an incendiary, hee travelling from place to place till every place was
weary of him, supposing that by length of time injuries might be forgotten
and the heat of our spirits somewhat allayed, he returned again & for a
short season applied himself to some orderly living; but a man habittuated
in all manner of wickednesse is not so easily reclaimed, he taking up his
former wont persisting in the same and that no thing might be wanting to
fill up his measure, he hath anew vilified the chiefest of our magistrates
and abused them by opprobrious terms.
The subscribers to this complaint & having a deep sense of these mischiefs
and expecting no end thereof from him, that their might be secured
and the names & goods of others preserved, have drawne forth a portrature
or charge of this Coleord & present to the wise of that much honored
Court, not knowing any other way remedy of the aforesaid evils.
The subscribers hereunto will be ready to make good what charges are
given in this complaint.
Thomas Coleman, Thomas Ffilbrook,
Timothy Dalton, William Ffiffield
John Brown, Humphrey Wilson,
John Will Ffulbrook
William Godfrey, Robert Nason(?)
Robert Tuck
The General Court referred the petition to the County Court
at Hampton, which, nothing loath, handed down a decision which
in its failure to specify the offenses charged, shows clearly the
lack of protection which a person who had rendered himself
obnoxious to powerful interests might then expect at the hands
of the law.
Att the Court held at Hampton, ye 8th, 8th mo. 1661, upon the complaint
preferred against Edward Coleord at the General Court & referd to this
court to hear and determine—This Court having found him guilty of many
notable misdemeanors and crimes, some agt Authority and some agt persons
in authority, some cheeting of men in their estates, some in causing need-
lesse and vexatious suits in law & other disturbances among the people:
He is sentenced as followeth, viz., to pay a fine of five pound to ye Treasurer
of this County; 2ly to bee comitted to the house of correction att Boston,
not theare to be discharged, unless there bee bond taken to the vallue
t
THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
76
of with sufficient sureties for his good behaviour, and in prticular
that hee sue no man at any time hereafter without putting in good security
to satisfye ye partie sued what shall be recovered of him by authority from
time to time & costs.”
It is evident from these documents that Edward Colcord had
offended by laying claim to property which others wished to
retain; that he had assailed the powerful and pompous Capt.
Wiggin ; and that he had been too outspoken in his criticisms of
other magistrates. But to condemn a man to prison for the
causes alleged, with no more proof than was advanced, is a bare-
faced miscarriage of justice.
He resisted the court order, and his behavior when haled to
court is thus described in an affidavit by the constable of Dover:
June 27, 1661
Philip Chesley constable of Dover concerning Edward Coleord to be
ondertaken with drinke in time of the Courte sitting, and taking him to
bring before the Courte to answr it, the s¢ Coleord gave the s4 constable a
thrust from him we was testified by Jno Moulton and Thos. Ffootman, and
confest by ye s4 Colcord; together with violent and uncomely speaking to
Captain Wiggins in and before the Court, whene he was comanded silence,
discovering much contempt therein. The court sentence is that for his
excess drinking and his carriage above said to pay a fine of 10(?) shillings
or sett in ye stocks one hower and halfe and fees of Court 28/6. Captain
Parks ingaged to Constable Thos. Rock to satisfie for this fine.
But Coleord was not without friends of some influence in the
community who arranged that he should be ‘‘let go by his keep-
ers in the night.’’ The Court visited its displeasure on its
unfaithful servants by ordering that the constable at Hampton
‘*for his neglect, shall loose all his chardges for bringing the
said Coleot to Boston.’’!®
No record has been found that the prison sentence imposed on
Coleord by the Court was ever served ; he probably Jeft the juris-
diction and returned to Saco till the matter blew over. His
eldest son, Jonathan, died in Hampton in June, 1661; but he
remained in Maine. In July of that year he was ‘‘convicted for
drunkennesse upon his own acknowledgment and the testimony
of Mr. Samuel Hall’’ and fined 10s in the York County Court.
Two years later, he was bound over for good behavior after
Major Lasher complained to the York County Court that he had
‘‘abused Capt. Wiggin by unseemly words,’’ and Nathaniel
Maysterson and Robert Wadleigh testified that he had said that
‘*Yorke men were a company of pittiful roges & rascalls ; namely
Mr. Rishworth & Capt. Raynes & all the assotiats that acted in
the case about Jere: Sheeres, his punishment at Wells Court.’’
In 1667, the Court at Hampton denied a further petition of
. I, pages 236-238.
. Vo
|_|
4
WN. H.S.
18N.H.S. P. Vol. I, page 241. |
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL 77
Ann Coleord to have a committee appointed on her behalf to
settle several cases between her husband and others.
In 1670 and again in 1672, Coleord was prosecuted in the York
County Court, on the latter occasion for ‘‘abusing Capt. Good-
erings by scoffing and abusive languadge.’’ He was ordered to
pay ‘‘ £5 in silver down upon the nayle or forthwith be carried
to the post and there to have ten strips given him upon the bare
skine.’’ He paid the fine ; an enormous one for the times and for
the offense alleged. Free speech came high in the Colonies.
In 1676, he was in Boston, testifying as an ‘‘antient inhabi-
tant’’ of the region against the claims of the Mason heirs under
the Laconia grant, a service for which he later petitioned in
quaint language for £10 recompense. The following year he
signed the petition of the men of Hampton to be continued under
the government of Massachusetts Bay'®*—the first instance of
conformity which he had shown in many years. He was an old
man ; he had given up the battle against Massachusetts and Cap-
tain Wiggin.
In 1677, his second son, Edward, was killed by Indians during
King Philip’s War, leaving only Samuel to carry on the name.
Debts began to overwhelm him. In 1679, Henry Dow, ‘‘mar-
shall of Norfolk,’’ reports that he has ‘‘said Coleord locked in
fast’’ for the satisfaction of a claim against him for £200 by
Richard Bradley, who alleged that Colcord had unlawfully dis-
posed of a ketch in which Bradley was part owner.*® Land
belonging to Coleord in Hampton was ‘‘destreigned’’ in 1680,
probably in satisfaction of this rather large claim. The estate
left by his son Edward, amounting to £85, was settled at this
time on Samuel, an arrangement in which the father concurred,
probably to keep it from being involved in the distrainment pro-
ceedings. At the same time or a little later, Edward transferred
to Samuel his own property, or what remained of it.
In April 1681, he petitions the court for the return of his dis-
trained property, naming as friends to act for him some of the
leading citizens of the community. The phrase in which he
hopes that his request will be considered rational indicates that
his sanity may have already been in question.*!
To ye much honored President & Council of his Majesties
Province of New Hampshire.
The petition of Edward Coleord humbly sheweth.
That whereas yor petitionr & Henry Williams having a case depending in
Court referred ye final issue thereof to yor honors equall judgement; yor
petitionr rests in yor judgement & is ready to fulfill ye Conditions thereof,
if yor honors shall see meet to cause my self to be once possessed of ye
estate yor honors judge mine, without which yor sentence cannot be attended,
1” N. H. S. P. Vol. XVII, page 527.
2” N. E. H. G. R., Vol. 28, page 373.
21N.H. S. P., Vol. XVII, page 607; original document in New Hampshire State Histor-
ical Society.
|
|
78 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
& therefore my humble & I hope rational request is; yor honors wou:ld be
pleased to appoint Capt: Gilman, Capt: Haussey, & Samuel Dalton Esquires
ye Reverend Mr. Saml: Dudley and Mr. Seaborn Cotton to give me peaceable
possession of my estate violently detained from me that I may both enjoy
myne own & justly pay others their due & according to yor honors appoint-
ment I shall magnifie yor Justice & remain
Yor humble suppliant
Edward Coleord
Aprill 20, 1681
Meanwhile, the difficulties between himself and his wife had
reached the point of being a public scandal, as shown by the
following document in the Collections of the N. H. Historical
Society.”
22 April, 1680. Edward Coleord and Ann, his wife, being brought before
us, the subscribers, and accusing each other for scratching and fighting,
and the said Edward Coleord being bloody on his face, and Ann on one
of her hands, which she said was done by her husband, and he also offering
that those scratches on his face was done by his wife, and they both inveying
bitterly one against the other, are both bound to appear before the Presi-
dent & Council at Portsmouth, upon the second Tuesday in June next, to
answer for their disorders, & to keep the peace in the meantime, on penalty
of the offending party being committed to prison that shall be convicted of
breaking the peace during this bond.
Addendum:
Ann Coleord acknowledged in court that she bid her daughter Deborah
take the pot of butter from her husband.
Records of President and Council:
At a meeting of ye Council ye 10th June 1680 In portsmo.
Edward Coleord & Ann his wife being bownd ovt to appeare before ye
Council for yt disorderly living. Upon a full hearing of ye case, the
Council doth order that ye sd Edw: Coleord & Ann his wife shall stand
bownd to ye Tresst of this province in ye sume of 5/11 apeece to be of
good behavior each to ye other during the pleasure of ye Council, & that ye
said Ann do attend her duty toward her husband in the Use of the marriage
bed according to ye rule of gods word, weh if she refuse so to do upon
complaynt to ye next Court at Hampton, the Council doth order she shalbe
whipt to the number of 10: stripes: the consil takes his owne: bond.”
Both must have been about 60 at the time, the parents of
eleven children, the last born in 1667, so that the conventional
adjurations to Ann seem a work of supererogation. The court’s
orders were not effective, and a year later, it becomes evident
that Edward’s entire family was arrayed against him.
29th June, 1681. The case of Edward Coleord for abuse offered to his
wife att divers times as Doth appear by Evidence, the Presedent and Council
doth order that the sayd Edward Colcord shall continnow in prison till
Hampton Court next, unless he Gitt baile to the vallue of fortie pounds to
keepe the peace towards all persons and speciall towards his wife and
children till the Court take further order Concerning him.
*2N.H.S. P. Vol. VIII, page 40.
3N. H. S. P. Vol. XIX, page 670.
EDWARD COLCORD, REBEL 79
80th June, 1681. Edward Coleord moving the Council (who hath sen-
tenced him to prison, there to be kept till can give Security of £40 for his
Good Appearing to his wife and family that stands in fear of their lives
if he be att liberty) which by reason of his restraint Cannot find what to
answer, as if he had some time allowed him to Attaine the same, the Council
further doth order thatt he have three weeks or a month’s liberty to procure
sufficient sureties to the said some of £40, and if in the mean time he shall
Committ any outt Rage or any wise abuse his wife and children upon any
of their Complaints to authority made by them that then he shall forfeit
to the Treasurer of this p’vence all that Right he hath or ought to have
into all or any part of thatt maintenance the Council hath allotted him for
his support During his life out of whatt Ever Estate he hath or pretendeth
to have, and be forthwith committed to prison without baile or monie prize
there to be kept During the Council’s pleasure to be Committed by such
of the Council as the Complaint be made unto.”
An entry in the Hampton town records closes his unhappy
story:
‘*Oulde Edward Colcord died February 10, 1681-2.’’ His wife
survived him by seven years; the Rev. John Pike of Dover writes
in his journal on January 24, 1688-9, ‘‘Mrs Colcord died of an
Appoplex.”’
When we examine the career of Edward Colcord in the light
of modern knowledge, we must realize that we are regarding a
psychoneurotic. It is a mistake to suppose that the early
pioneers were all simple, rugged individuals with minds and
personalities adjusted to their environment. The history of
the times shows many aberrants, though the pattern of their
lives does not often stand out so clearly.
Edward Coleord was a man of superior mental equipment,
but with marked emotional imbalance and maladjustments of
personality which brought all his ambitions to nought. His chief
aims seem to have been to gain security through the acquirement
of land, and status through leadership conceded by his fellows.
Like many neuroties, the efforts he put forth to attain those ends
were those least calculated to secure them. His desperate need
to register the superiority he felt found expression in scorn and
contempt toward those who differed from him. His failure of
sustained purpose, the readiness with which he left one thing
uncompleted and turned to another, prevented his securing or
at all events retaining, such wealth as the period offered. His
violent and bitter tongue alienated many influential contempo-
raries; and his unreliability and double-dealing made it impos-
sible for him to secure the leadership which he craved, and which
his mental powers would probably otherwise have warranted.
His life was a long warfare against society. He insisted, in
season and out, in pressing his claims against a community which
had set its mind against him and courts which let pass no oppor-
tunity to condemn him. If fair means did not succeed, he felt
*%N.H.S. P. Vol. I, page 367.
|
80 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
justified in trying foul. It is not claimed for him that he was
an espouser of unpopular causes on others’ behalf. His own
interests were always involved; and a deep sense of personal
injustice appears to have been the force which guided his career,
led to his loss of standing, and drove him finally to a condition
of mental disorder which in those days passed unrecognized for
what it was.
The same self-absorption which defeated his own interests
made it impossible for him to make a good matrimonial adjust-
ment. The only glimpse we get of his wife is a sorry one; but
living with Edward and bearing his eleven children may have
made an originally normal girl into the shrew with the pot of
butter. Neurotics often manufacture their own mis-matings.
Others of Edward Colcord’s contemporaries may have suf-
fered loss of goods and repute; felt injustice, passionate anger,
and revolt; reviled the worthy in high places; taken to drink as
a way of escape; returned again and again to the assault of
entrenched privilege; seen their wives and children turn away
from them, and known that it was with cause; and in the end
lost their hold on reason and life together; but they left in the
documents of the times no such vivid case-histories of their per-
sonal tragedies as did Edward Colcord.
Issue, births of some recorded at Hampton :
2. i, JONATHAN, b. 1641, d. Aug. 31, 1661 in 21st yr. He pleaded
guilty of defending his father in a suit at a time he was
too young to practice law.
3. ii. ELIZABETH, b. 1643 (7), m. by 1664 Ropert Evans of Dover.
4. iii, Hannan, b. ca. 1645, d. July 17, 1720; m. Dec. 28, 1688,
THOMAS DEARBORN.
5. iv. Saran, b. ca. 1647; m. Dee. 30, 1668, Joun Hoses.
6. v. Mary, b. Oct. 4, 1649, d. Nov. 23, 1741; m. Dec. 28, 1670,
Rev. BENJAMIN FIFIELD.
7. vi. Epwarp, b. Feb, 2, 1651/2, slain by the Indians, June 13,
1677.
+ 8. vii. SAMUEL, b. ca. 1656; m. Mary AYER.
9. viii, MEHITABEL, b. ca. 1658, m. Oct. 20, (Dec.?) 1677, NATHANIEL
STEVENS of Dover.
10. ix. SHuAnH, b. June 12, 1660/62; m. (1) RicHarp Nason, (2)
Sept. 16, 1687, Jonn
11. DesoraH, b. May 21, 1664; m. ca. 1684, TristRAM COFFIN.
12. xi. ABIGAIL, b. July 23, 1667, apparently died young.
(Apologia: It may be questioned why a descendant of Edward Colcord
should spread such a history upon the record. When I first turned to the
books, it was with no idea other than to glean a few general facts about
another dead-and-gone pioneer. The first shock of discovery was succeeded
by extreme interest to learn what materials could be found and utilized to
throw light upon a highly complicated personality, vanished these three
hundred years. Then, as I sensed the acrid passions still steaming up from
the antiquated words, I became fascinated to observe the character that was
unfolding—no weakling, but a sick soul; a man of enormous, frustrated
energy which always recoiled upon itself.
|
KATHERINE SCOTT, DAUGHTER OF REV. FRANCIS MARBURY? 81
If Edward Coleord had lived today, we know enough, had he fallen at a
sufficiently early age into the right hands, to salvage that energy and
intelligence, and turn them into useful channels.
Many biographers pass lightly over and even suppress the human frailties
of their subjects. Particularly is this true of genealogical biographers—
their results are often no more life-like than are contemporary portraits in
oils. It is in the belief that a sincere and sympathetic attempt, however
unskilful, to clothe facts with flesh and blood cannot be out of place, that
I have at last decided to let this sketch of a forefather see print.—J. C. C.)
WAS KATHERINE SCOTT A DAUGHTER OF
REV. FRANCIS MARBURY OF LONDON?
By Merepitu B. CoLKet, Jr., of Washington, D. C.
|Compiler’s note. Acknowledgment is due Mr. Herbert F. Seversmith of
Washington, D. C., who kindly studied the paper and who copied one of the
letters quoted. |
In collaboration with Mr. Edward N. Dunlap, the writer com-
piled a book in 1936 entitled: The English Ancestry of Anne
Marbury Hutchinson and Katherine Marbury Scott... The par-
entage of Anne, wife of William Hutchinson, was determined
by Col. Lemuel Chester and published in the New England His-
torical and Genealogical Register in 1866.2 The parentage of
Katherine, wife of Richard Scott of Providence, was determined
by Martin B. Seott, whose findings were published in the same
journal in 1867.5 Both women were stated to be daughters of
Rev. Francis Marbury of Alford, Lincolnshire, and London. A
baptismal entry in the records of the parish church at Alford
was given as evidence for Anne’s parentage. Proof of Kather-
ine’s paternity was based upon an assertion by Governor Thomas
Hutchinson that Mrs. Hutchinson had a sister who married a
Scott of Providence,* combined with a statement in a book pub-
lished in 1661 that the father of Katherine Scott was ‘‘Mr. Mar-
bery.’"> The present compilers, having examined the evidence
in the case, accepted it, and therefore centered their efforts on
developing the interesting English ancestry of the two colonists.
On page 34 of our booklet, Katherine Scott is thus listed among
the children of Rev. Francis Marbury (1555-1611) :
‘*Katherine, b. ca 1610 d. 2 May 1687 at Newport,
Rhode Island, when her age is given in the Quaker
Records as 70 years.’”®
1 Published by the Magee Press, Overbrook, Philadelphia, Penna., at $1.50 the copy.
Postage $.15 extra. Hereafter cited as The Marbury Ancestry.
2 XX, 363-366.
*XXI, 180-181.
* Quoted by Col. Chester. Jbid., XX, 366.
5 Quoted in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, LX, 171.
* “Katherine Scot, aged about 70 years, the widow of Richard Scot, of Providence. She
departed this Life in Newport the 2nd 3/m 1687."" Page 7 of the original book.
|
82 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Mr. Richard Le Baron Bowen, a thorough genealogist, examined
the original passage and shows that it reads ‘‘about 70 years.’’
But he questions Katherine’s paternity, stating that the Quaker
vital records make her born in 1617, six or seven years after the
death of Rev. Francis Marbury ‘‘It was unfortunate that the
above was written as it was,’’ he writes, ‘‘ because as printed the
reader sees immediately that Katherine could not have been the
daughter of Francis Marbury . . . These Quaker records at New-
port have been found to be fairly accurate, and Miss Tilley,
Librarian of the Newport Historical Society, who has done con-
siderable work on them, does not know of any other discrepancies
as great as six or seven years.”’
Mr. Bowen then proceeds to question the interpretation placed
on the assertion and the book. In considering the assertion, he
feels that Katherine could have been sister-in-law and still be
called sister. In considering the book, he points out that Kath-
erine’s father may have been some other Marbury, for example
Rev. Edward Marbury, a gentleman some twenty years younger
than Rev. Francis Marbury. Even if it were the Rev. Francis
Marbury referred to, she still could have been a daughter-in-law
and called daughter.
He concludes: ‘‘You have built up a wonderful English
ancestry for Katherine, which, of course, has no value if Kath-
erine was not the daughter of Francis Marbury.
‘‘A professional genealogist in Providence for some twenty-
five years, . . . a careful accurate genealogist, in writing a Scott
pedigree in 1924 for [a client of prominence], says:
Katherine, wife of Richard Scott is called the daughter of Rev. Francis
Marbury by Austin. This could not be as the Rev. Francis died 1610/11.
She was probably the young widow of one of his eldest sons.
‘* All genealogists that I have talked with who are familiar
with this family agree that further English research is neces-
sary on Katherine Scott before she is proved the daughter of
Francis Marbury.’’
Having presented Mr. Bowen’s case,’ I shall attempt to show
that it can be satisfactorily answered. Before doing so, I want
to point out that the primary and original objection is the single
discrepancy in the age given in a death notice. An age given at
7 His case might have been stronger had he pointed out that the recognized Lincolnshire
genealogical compendium, Rev. Canon Maddison’s ‘Lincolnshire Pedigrees,’ Harleian
Society Publication, LI, 638, 639, omits Katherine in the list of children of Rev. Francis
Marbury. It is to be remembered, however, that Maddison’s work is only a secondary
compilation and the sources available to him were none other than those available to
Col. Chester in 1866. It is evident that Maddison did not mention all the twelve children
living when Marbury made his will. Maddison names fourteen children, but he shows
that three of them were buried by 1601. Therefore not more than eleven of these children
mentioned by Maddison could have been living when Marbury made his will and at
least one other, John, was probably dead by that date. Hence, Maddison’s list of
Marbury’s surviving children is incomplete.
|
KATHERINE SCOTT, DAUGHTER OF REV. FRANCIS MARBURY? 83
a person’s death is not a conclusive indication as to a date of
birth. It would be useless to give instance after instance where
such discrepancies have existed, but I do want to point out a
similar ‘‘diserepancy’’ in Quaker records, as they have been held
up as a model for exactness. The following entry is taken from
the Quakers records of the same colony, is dated about the same
time (1671) and the age given is the same (‘‘about 70 years’’) :
Richard Borden . . . one of the first planters, lived about 70 years, and
then died. He was buried ... in Portsmouth, upon the 25th day of the
3rd month 1671.8
No less a scholar than Mr. G. Andrews Moriarty identifies him,
without hesitation, as that Richard Borden baptized at Head-
corn, co. Kent, 22 Feb. 1595/6. This discrepancy is five years
off or more. In my opinion the word about was an approxima-
tion used by the recorder because the exact age was not known.
If the death notice causes a legitimate presumption of doubt in
the mind of anyone, it is in no sense a governing factor in deter-
mining whether or not Katherine was a daughter of Rev. Fran-
cis Marbury. With this thought in mind, let us proceed with
an analysis of the evidence.
It is noted that Mr. Bowen concluded with a challenge to the
effect that ‘‘further English research is necessary’’ before this
lineage can be accepted. Rev. Francis Marbury did not men-
tion the names of his children in his will.’° The church records
of St. Martin’s Vintry where Marbury’s younger children were
probably baptized were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666.
Therefore, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find proof
of the relationship in English records. I believe the impartial
reader will agree that competent evidence is the essential cri-
terion of proof, not whether the information is secured as a result
of English research or American research.
The question is squarely put: Is there sufficient cumulative
evidence, either in English records, American records or both
to substantiate the claim that Katherine Scott was a daughter
of Rev. Francis Marbury?
Martin B. Scott based his claim upon the following two bits
of evidence :
1. A statement made by Governor Thomas Hutchinson (1711-
1780). According to Col. Lemuel Chester, Hutchinson wrote
that Anne had a sister who was the wife of Joseph Scott of
Providence.'! Martin B. Scott first shows that if Anne had a
sister Katherine who married a Scott of Providence, that Scott
8 Weld, Hattie Borden, Richard and Joane Borden, 39.
® New England Historical and Genealogical Register, LXXXIV, 228.
Tbid., XXI, 283. Though the will of his widow is available (See The Marbury Ances-
try, 32) only some of the children and grandchildren are mentioned by name.
‘1! New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XX, 366.
84 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
was Richard. Hutchinson’s statement may have been based
upon an entry in Governor Winthrop’s Journal . . . under date
of March 16, 1639:
At Providence things grew still worse, for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson,
the wife of one Scott. . .”
2. A book written by George Bishop and published in 1661.
‘*Katherine Seot of the Town of Providence ... Tho’ ye confessed,
when ye had her before you, that for ought ye knew, she had been of an
Unblameable Conversation; and tho’ some™ of you knew her Father, and
called him Mr. Marbery, and that she had been well-bred (as among Men)
and had so lived, and that she was the Mother of many Children; yet ye
whipp’d her for all that.’
The writer now presents three additional pieces of evidence
unknown to Martin B. Scott in 1867.
3. Marriage record in the parish register of Berkhamstead,
Hertfordshire, where the widow of Francis Marbury was living.
June 7, 1632, Richard Secotte & Katheryne Morbury.”*
4. Letter written by a son'* of Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson.
To the Honnored General Courte now
Assembled at Boston
The humble petition of Edward Hutchinson
Humb(1l)y sheweth
That whereas yor petitioner had an Aunte’* came into this jurisdiction
who was Appthended as a Quaker and dealt wth accordingly, and abide-
ing in the house of correction for not paiment of her fees: The Courte
I supose can not but appthend it no smal troble to me to have her abide
there for ye not paiment of a smal some, I tould her I would pay it
rather than she should there Abide, but she refuseing to goe out if I
should doe soe, neither was she wiling to goe wthout the three Quakers
in prison, I was forced to deposit for al there ffees in mt Rawsons hand,
upon his condition that if this Court did iudge these fees due by law
weh was demanded, (wet for my pte I could not see they were) then
there the keepr might have it, but if this Court iudge them not due
then to be returned to me Yor petitioner therefore humbly prayes this
Honrd Court to pass those laws w¢! conserne the house of Correction
12 Winthrop, John, Winthrop’s Journal, ed. by Hosmer, I, 297.
13 The term “some of you knew”’ rather than ‘“‘you knew’’ may have been used because
her father was long since dead. If this referred to the Rev. Francis Marbury, his
statement could be addressed to certain well known figures then living in Boston particu-
larly such men as Katherine’s persecutor, John Endicott, who was about twenty-two
— of age in 1611 and to Richard Bellingham, a former Governor of Massachusetts Bay
‘olony.
14 The term ‘‘Mister” was infrequently used in those days and applied to men of posi-
tion and social standing. Bishop is jibing her persecutors because they or those of their
stamp had thought so highly of her father that they had called him “Mister.”
*® Quoted_in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, LX, 171. Originally
printed in Bishop, George, New England Judged, by the Spirit of the Lord. 1661.
16 Phillimore, W. P. W., Hertfordshire Marriages, 2.
17 For the identity of this Capt. Edward Hutchinson and evidence that he was a son
of Anne Hutchinson see New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, XLV, 166, 167.
18 This could only refer to Katherine Scott, since of the four Quakers who were appre-
hended and tried in Boston in 1658, the other three, John Copeland, Christopher Poa
and John Rouse were men. New England Historical and Genealogical Register, LX,
|
| |
KATHERINE SCOTT, DAUGHTER OF REV. FRANCIS MARBURY? 85
together wth the first law in the first booke and give yor resolution
herein, and I hope I shal be wilingly satisfied wt» yor resolution, and
for ever owne my selfe to be bounde to prayer
yor Servant Edward
Hutchinson
[The following was endorsed at the right side]
In anst to ye peticon The magists Declare that they doe Allow &
Approve of the ffees The order of ye County Court hereto Anext setts
downe for the Keeper to have itt This Court have further ordered
Desiring theire brethren the Deputs® Consent thereto 12. (7)” mo
1658: voted by ye whole Court Howard Rawson Secrety
Ho: Rawson Secrety™
The Deputyes Consent not hereto
William Torrey Cleric
[at top, in line with
main body of petition
and at right angles to
the endorsement of the
court]:
Cpt. huttchensons
pet. Ent p nothing™
5. Letter from Katherine Scott to John Winthrop, Jr.
Providence, this 17 of the 4th
month, 1658
John Winthrop, Think it not hard to be called soe, seeing Jesus our
Saviour and Governor, and all that were made honorable by him, that
are recorded in Seripture were called soe, I have writ to thee before,
but never hard whether they came to thy hand: my last, it may be,
may troble thee, conserning my sonne;* but truly I had not propounded
it to thee but to satisfie his mind, and to prevent his going where wee
did more disafect; but I heare noe more of his mind that way. I hope
his mind is taken up with the thing we is the most necessary, and first
to seeke his kingdome, &c., therefore let yt be burred in silence, but
my later requeist I must revise, and that is only out of true love and
ity to thee, that thou maiest be free and not troubled, as I have
eard thy father was, upon his death bed, at the banishment of my
dear Sister Hutchenson and others . . . Woe be to you that gather and
not by him, and cover with a covering and not with his spirit, we? soe
I desire thou maiest escape.
Katherine Seott™
The last three pieces of evidence are in perfect harmony with
the first two and fully support the conclusions made in 1867.
1°The word may be “Deputies.”
2 A smudge obliterates the month date but it looks like ‘7.’ This is undoubtedly
correct, for 7 months was September 12, 1658. The three men were put into prison in
August 1658, and were sentenced to have their ears cut off on September 10. Katherine
Scott had come from Providence to Boston to act in their behalf, but was imprisoned for
her utterance. On September 16 the three had their ears cut off. On October 2, 1658
all Quakers were banished on pain of death. Besse, Joseph, A Collection of the Sufferings
of the People Called Quakers, II, 189, 190.
*1 The secretary had written this line first but as it was badly smudged, he rewrote it
out in full with considerable flourish.
= Massachusetts Archives, Vol. X, 243a, in Massachusetts State House, Boston. I am
indebted to Mr. Edward H. West for uncovering this item.
% This probably is not Christopher Holder whose marriage to Katherine’s daughter does
not seem to have been solemnized until June 12, 1660.
*% Massachusetts Historical Society. Published by Scull, G. D., Dorothea Scott, 34, 35.
86 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
It is seen that Katherine Scott, herself, called Anne Hutchinson
‘‘my dear Sister.’’ Katherine could not have meant sister in the
church as Anne was an Antinomian and Katherine a Quaker.
The use of the words ‘‘my dear’’ emphasizes the fact that a
family relationship exists. It is seen that Edward Hutchinson,
son of Anne Hutchinson, called Katherine Scott aunt. Finally,
it is seen that Katherine Marbury married Richard Scott in the
same parish where Francis Marbury’s widow, then the wife of
the minister of the parish, was residing.
In view of these facts, it cannot be seriously maintained that
Anne’s father was the Rev. Edward Marbury of Old Warden
Bedfordshire, or any other Marbury as distantly related to the
Marburys of Lincolnshire. To my mind the evidence presented
above is conclusive that Katherine was related to Anne either
as a (1) half-sister, (2) step-sister, (3) sister-in-law, or (4) full
sister.
Let us consider these in turn. If Katherine were a half-sis-
ter, she must necessarily be a daughter of Rev. Francis Mar-
bury by his first wife who died about 1586 or a daughter of his
widow, Bridget (Dryden) Marbury, by her second husband, Rev.
Thomas Newman. In the first instance, Katherine would have
been over one hundred years old at her death, in which event she
could hardly pass as ‘‘about 70’’ in 1687. In the second instance,
Katherine would have been under twelve at the time of her
marriage, for Bridget (Dryden) Marbury had not married Rev.
Thomas Newman by December 1620 and Katherine married
Richard Scott in June 1632. I therefore conclude that Katherine
Scott was not a half-sister of Anne Hutchinson.
If Katherine were a step-sister, she must have been a daughter
of Rev. Thomas Newman. But Rev. Newman’s own church
records show that her name was not Newman but Marbury when
she married in 1632.
The ground has now been cleared for the more important con-
sideration: Was Katherine a sister-in-law of Anne? It is irre-
futable that Anne was a daughter of the Rev. Francis Marbury.
It is also irrefutable that Katherine was named Marbury in 1632
when she married Richard Scott. If this was her maiden name,
and if she was a sister of Anne Hutchinson, her father could be
none other than Rev. Francis Marbury. But she may have been
Katherine Marbury, widow. We can therefore boil down our
third consideration into the more specific one: Was Katherine
Marbury a widow in 1632 when she married Richard Scott?
Such a consideration, it is to be remembered, was brought up by
Mr. Bowen on the ground that Katherine Scott was called about
70 at death and hence born about 1617. If Katherine Scott was
born in 1617, and if she married Richard Scott in 1632 as her
23 Marbury Ancestry, 32.
|
KATHERINE SCOTT, DAUGHTER OF REV. FRANCIS MARBURY? 87
second husband, she was a widow at fifteen years of age. (It
might be mentioned on the side that while this is a possible
phenomenon, it is a far more difficult hurdle to jump than the
age approximation given in her death notice.)
This very serious objection has been offered to the assumption
that Katherine was a widow in 1632 when she married Richard
Scott. There are others. It apparently was customary at Berk-
hamstead for the recorder to indicate those women who were
widows at the time of their marriage and the copyist placed a
‘‘w’’ after the names of many women who married at that
ehurech. No ‘‘w’’ follows the name ‘‘Katheryne Morbury.’”*®
A third objection to such a conclusion is the statement made by
George Bishop: ‘‘Some of you knew her father and called him
Mr. Marbery.’’ This is a clear statement that her father’s name
was Marbury. Mr. Bowen feels that she could have been a
daughter-in-law of Rev. Francis Marbury. Mr. Marbury had
eight sons, but a study of the Marbury family shows that only
Erasmus and Jeremuth could apply. Both of these were over
16 years her senior, Erasmus dying in 1627, when a girl born
in 1617 was only 10 years of age. The assumption is most
unlikely. Bishop would be referring to Katherine Scott’s first
husband’s father. He would be saying in effect: ‘‘ Katherine
must be a virtuous woman because over twenty-nine years ago
she married a man whose father you called Mister. . .’’ I can-
not agree that this is a possible deduction. I cannot agree with
any other interpretation than that in 1661 George Bishop
believed that her father’s name was Marbury. He may have
been misinformed, but as early contemporaneous records har-
monize so well, there is no legitimate reason to question his state-
ment. To sum up, I conclude that Katherine was not a sister-
in-law of Anne Hutchinson on the grounds that (1) George
Bishop during her lifetime wrote that her father’s name was
Marbury, (2) assuming Mr. Bowen’s hypothesis that she was
born in 1617, she was a widow at the remarkably early age of
15; and (3) the church record of her marriage does not designate
her as a widow.
The first three considerations having been proved impossible
or highly improbable, let us now see if Anne and Katherine
Scott were full sisters. To put it exactly: Was Katherine Scott
a daughter of Rev. Francis Marbury (1555-1611) by his second
wife Bridget Dryden (ca 1564-1645) ? The baptismal records of
Francis Marbury’s children after 1605 have been burned, but
it is known that his wife was having a son in 1608 and it is rea-
sonable to suppose that she was having children until his death
in 1610/11. Katherine could have been born two years after
This is not put forward as conclusive evidence, as there is no indication that the
recorder was regular in so designating widows but it serves as good negative evidence.
|
|
|
|
88 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
1608, viz. 1610. She would thus be the same age as her husband
and 22 years of age in 1632.
The assumption that Katherine was a daughter of Rev. Francis
and Bridget (Dryden) Marbury and born about 1610 harmon-
izes with the known facts in every detail with a single exception,
the approximate age notice given in the Quaker records at her
death. In view of this discussion, I cannot feel that the death
record carries sufficient weight to offset the strong evidence cited
above.
I have tried to show (a) that the death notice ‘‘about 70’’ is
not a controlling factor in determining Katherine’s exact date of
birth; (b) that it is chronologically possible for Katherine to be
a daughter of Rev. Francis Marbury and (c) that my conclusion
as to her parentage is based upon the following evidence:
1. Katherine at birth was a Marbury.”*
2. Katherine in 1632 at the time of her marriage was a Mar-
bury.
3. Katherine in 1639 was called sister of Anne Hutchinson
by John Winthrop.
4. Katherine in 1658 called Anne Hutchinson ‘‘my dear
Sister.’’
5. Katherine in 1658 was called ‘‘Aunte’’ by a son of Anne
Hutchinson.
The foregoing evidence seems conclusive to the present writer,
who wishes to thank Mr. Bowen for his careful criticism of the
Seott—Marbury link. He, as well as anyone el: _ has a legitimate
right to question any statement of genealogical fact made in
print. Not only was his criticism made in good faith, but (with-
out the offsetting evidence presented above) it was an entirely
valid criticism. As such, it merited studied consideration, and
it is hoped that the obstacle pointed out by him has been fairly
met and overcome.
NOTES ON SOME IMMIGRANTS FROM OTTERY
ST. MARY, DEVON, ENGLAND
By Mrs. Mary Lovertnc HoLMAN, of Watertown, Mass.
SEARLE
There were a number of men by the name of Searle who came
to New England, after 1650. No two of them settled in the same
town, but records prove that some of them came from Ottery St.
Mary, Devon, England. The following deposition showed that
This is true, as her father is a Marbury.
q
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES ON SOME IMMIGRANTS FROM OTTERY ST. MARY 89
one of these immigrants came from there and a page to page
search of the Register gave the family connections.
‘*Philip Searle, late of Ottery St. Mary, in the County of
Devon, in England, Clothier, aged about thirty-eight years,
deposed that ‘Robert Picks wife of Marbellhead who is Called
and knowen by the name of Grace Picke and Liueth in Ottery St.
Mary aboues® hath in these few late yeares brought seu‘al Leeters
to this depont which came from her husband Robert Picke’,’’
ete., 10 Nov. 1671.
Eneas Salter of Ottery St. Mary, mason, aged about forty-one
years, deposed in the same case, 10 Nov. 1671. (Essex Quarterly
Court Files, V :65.)
The Registers of Ottery St. Mary do not begin until 1601;
there are a number of John Searles baptised there early enough
to have been the father of that John, who was father of the emi-
grants, but no proof has been found as to which he might be.
1. JoHN SEARLE, born probably about 1605-1610, Ottery,
Devon, England, died after 1642. He married in Ottery St.
Mary, 21 Apr. 1631, Marcaret CHANNON, probably the one bap-
tised there, 28 Apr. 1611, daughter of John Channon. She died
in Ottery St. Mary, being buried there, 27 May 1642.
If this Margaret Channon were the daughter of John, the fol-
lowing is probably the record of her parent’s marriage: John
Chanon, son of Johan Channon, widow, and Marie ‘‘ Welsh,’’
daughter of Thomas ‘‘ Welch,’’ married, 20 Jan. 1609, Ottery
St. Mary.
Children, baptised Ottery St. Mary, Devon:
2. i. JoHN’', bapt. 22 Apr. 1632; m. 26 Nov. 1661, Boston, Mass.,
KATHARINE WARNER.
3. ii, PHILip, bapt. 15 Aug. 1633; m. 28 Sept. 1652, Ottery St. Mary,
HANNAH SALTER.
iii, WILLIAM, bapt. 23 Jan. 1634; m. 12 Apr. 1659, Ottery St. Mary,
pub. 12 Mar. 1658-59 (Ottery St. Mary Register, 1157), Grace
CoLE, bapt. there, 22 Nov. 1636, daughter of Richard and
Grace Cole. He settled in Ipswich, Mass.*
iv. Ropert, bapt. 13 Jan. 1636; m. 26 Aug. 1661, Ottery St. Mary,
DEBORAH SALTER; he was admitted an inhabitant of Dorchester,
Mass., with his wife, Deborah, 9 June 1662.
y. ELIzaBETH, bapt. 21 Nov. 1639, buried 4 Jan. 1639-40.
vi. MARGARET, bapt. 25 May 1642, buried 5 June 1642.
2. JoHN' SEARLE (John), baptised in Ottery St. Mary,
Devon, 22 Apr. 1632, died in Stonington, Conn., 14 Oct. 1711,
aged ‘‘eighty-two’’ [should be seventy-nine] years. He married
in Boston, Mass., possibly secondly, 26 Nov. 1661, widow Kartu-
ARINE WARNER, who died in Stonington, 17 July 1707. in her
eighty-fourth year, perhaps the widow of Thomas Warner. This
* An account of the family of William and Grace (Cole) Searle appears in the ‘‘Ancestry
of Charles Stinson Pillsbury and John Sargent Pillsbury,’’ by Mary Lovering Holman,
Rumford Press, 1938.
|
|
|
|
90 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
couple are buried beside each other in the Wequeticock Yard in
Stonington, their ages being given on their gravestones. It is a
peculiarity of this Searle family that the men married later than
was usual at this period and that the wives were often older than
their husbands.
John and Katharine had three children born in Boston before
removing to Stonington, John receiving land there in Stonington
in 1668: ‘‘February 8 1668 Twenty acres of land laid out to
John Searle.’’ Later, he had other grants of land given him.
When his son, Ebenezer, married, at the age of thirty-one, John
made him a deed of gift:
“*T John Searle of Stonington . . . have and Doe upon Divers
good Considerations Espetially my fatherly Effection moveing
me .. . given unto my Loving Son Ebenezer Searle the halfe
of my Estate . . . and if my Said Son Ebenezer . . . Doth
Continew with me to be helpful to me, then I . . . Doe fully
promise and ingage to my Said Son Ebenezer the rest of my
whole Estate with my mouvables, after my and my wife’s
Decease,’’ 14 Jan. 1697. ‘‘Cattern’’ also signs with him. (Ston-
ington Deeds, 2:190.)
John and Ebenezer Searle, weavers, of Stonington, sell land
there to William Denison, 7 Dec. 1709, and ‘‘Mr. John Searle’’
and Ebenezer Searle acknowledge the deed. (ibid., 2:54.)
John Searle, having given all his property to his son, Ebenezer,
made no will and no administration was taken on his estate.
Children, born in Boston, Mass. :
i. ELIzABETH®, b. 19 Oct. 1662, d. 8 June 1664,
ii. JOHN, b. 19 Nov. 1664, prob. d. by 1697.
iii. EBENEZER, b. 6 Mar. 1665, d. 18 Jan. 1739-40, Stonington; m.
there, 14 Jan. 1697, his cousin, MARGARET SEARLE, bapt. 13 Aug.
1644, Ottery St. Mary, d. after 1740, daughter of Philip and
Hannah (Salter) Searle. They had no children, but he was a
good friend to his wife’s nephews and nieces, and at his death
left most of his property to them. He gave substantial legacies
to the church and to a former apprentice, Daniel Hobart. His
will, made 17 Jan. 1739-40, proved 15 Feb., following, gives to
his loving wife, Margaret; to Hannah Clark of Roxbury; to
Philip Searle, Margaret Howitt and Deborah Searle; to Mary
Searle, £50 and a bed and bedding; to Rev. Mr. Ebenezer
Rossiter; to Margaret Hobart and Hannah Hobart; £5 to ‘‘ye
Society to Healp procure Eutenticials for ye Sacrement’’; to
Benjamin Searle; to Daniel Hobart; to ‘‘Bennoney Sarle the
farme and Buildings where he Now Liveth and all yt Land I
have not Disposed of in Stonington he taking care of my wife
and his mother; wife and Benoni Searle named as executors.
His inventory amounted to £2520-7-9, which, even if depreciated
currency, was a large estate. (Stonington District, No. 4726,
Conn. State Probate Files.) In this will, he mentions no rela-
tionship except in the case of his wife.*
* Various authorities have given different relationships as being stated in the will. One
calls Mary, Ebenezer’s ‘‘sister in law.’’ The following accounts untangle all the erroneous
statements.
He
a
NOTES ON SOME IMMIGRANTS FROM OTTERY ST. MARY 91
3. Pui! Searte (John), baptised in Ottery St. Mary,
Devon, 15 Aug. 1633, died in Roxbury, Mass., 3 May 1710. He
married, first, in Ottery St. Mary, 28 Sept. 1657, Hannan
Sauter, born probably in some parish near Ottery, who died in
Roxbury, 16 Dee. 1691, daughter of James Salter. He married,
secondly, ELIzaABETH , who died in Roxbury, 5 Feb. 1708.
In the Registers of Ottery St. Mary, are listed a few banns.
Among these appears that of ‘‘Phillipp Searle, Searge Weaver,
& Hannah Salter, dau. James, Yeoman, 21 Aug.’’ 1657, (Page
1154.) Philip Searle did not leave Ottery until after his son,
James, was born in 1668. He probably arrived in the Colony
about August or September 1671. On 11 Sept. 1671, ‘‘ Francis
Bale was called before the Selectmen and his fine demanded for
Entertaining his Brother in law phillip Searle and his family
in his house without license from the Select men whose answer
was that he was speedily to remove to Rocksberry.’’ (Boston
Record, Commissioners Reports, 4:177.)
Francis Ball married, 27 Jan. 1662-63, in Dorchester, Abigail
Salter, who died, 1 Dec. 1708, there, aged about seventy-seven
years. She was evidently another daughter of James Salter and
it is probable that Deborah (Salter) Searle was still another
daughter. It is apparent that John, William and Robert Searle
came to the Colony about 1660, the last bringing their wives and
children with them. It also seems probable that Abigail Salter
came over with Robert and Deborah (Salter) Searle and lived
in their family until her marriage to Francis Ball. When Philip
Searle came over, he stopped with Francis and Abigail (Salter)
Ball, until he secured a home in Roxbury. For nearly two hun-
dred years, after the settlement of New England, no one could
move into a town without permission from the Selectmen and
were ‘‘warned out of town,’’ if they did so.
Philip Searle besides testifying in the Essex County Court, in
1671, as aged thirty-eight, also deposed in 1698, aged sixty-five,
both ages making him born in 1633.
He left no will and no administration was taken on his estate.
The baptisms of his children are so far apart that one wonders
if he did not have others, but no baptisms or burials, other than
the following, appear on the Registers of Ottery St. Mary.
Children, baptised in Ottery St. Mary:
4. i. JOHN’, b. 22 July, bapt. 29 July 1658; m. Mary Rvueeies and
Mary FIELDER.
5. ii. Pup, b. 1 Mar., bapt. 2 Mar. 1660-61; m. Hannan ELLIs.
iii, MARGARET, bapt. 13 Aug. 1664; m. her cousin, EBENEZER’? SEARLE.
iv. JAMES, bapt. 12 Aug. 1668, apparently the James who is buried
in the Road Graveyard, Stonington, Conn. He d. 11 Apr. 1738
(Stonington Vital Records). His gravestone has been read and
published by two people as, 11 Apr. 1730, probably the last
figure is worn. His age is given as ‘‘66th’’ year. He was
sixty-nine years old and possibly older.
92 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
4. (Philip!, John), born in Ottery St. Mary,
Devon, 22 July 1658, baptised there, 29 July 1658, died in Rox-
bury, Mass., between 19 Apr. 1746 and 26 July 1748. He mar-
ried, first, in Roxbury, 6 June 1682, Mary Ruaa.es, born there,
25 Mar. 1656, died there, 20 Sept. 1712, the daughter of John
and Mary (Gibson) Ruggles. He married, there, secondly, 21
Oct. 1713, Mary (Griaas) Frevper, born in 1657, died before
April 1746, daughter of John and Mary (Patten) Griggs.
John Searle had five children recorded in Roxbury and then
did not trouble to register the rest, so that the right order of
birth is not provable. From the order in his will, Joseph should
be older than Benjamin. This is probably correct, although a
war service in 1760, gives Benjamin’s age as fifty-five.
John Searle of Roxbury, weaver, left a will, dated 19 Apr.
1746 and proved 26 July 1748, in which he gave to his son, Philip
Searle, his dwelling house, and all land in Roxbury, his cows,
half his loom and tackling, a bed and its furniture, and a part
of his clothes; to sons, Joseph and Benjamin Searle, all lands in
Woodstock; to son, Joseph, the remainder of the wearing
apparel ; to son, Benjamin, half his loom and tackling; to daugh-
ter, Mary Searle, one third of the moveables and fifty shillings;
to the heirs of daughter, Hannah Stone, to wit: her daughters,
Hannah and Mary, fifty shillings; to daughter, Margaret Huit,
one third of the moveables and fifty shillings; to daughter,
Deborah Searle, one third of the moveables, the lower room at
the west end of his dwelling until she marry or decease, then to
return to son, Philip Searle, and one cow, which Philip was to
keep for her; and named his son, Philip Searle, his executor.
(Suffolk Probate, 9049.)
Children, probably all born in Roxbury, Mass. :
i. Joun*, bapt. 13 Apr. 1684, d. 1716, Stonington, Conn., being
called ‘‘son of John of Roxbury,’’ in his death record. (Ston-
ington Vital Records.)
ii. JAMES, twin, bapt. 7 Mar. 1685, d. 7 Mar., buried 10 Mar. 1684-85,
iii. PHiLip, twin, bapt. 7 Mar. 1685, d. in 1773, Roxbury, unmarried.
His death was noted in the Boston Gazette, issue of 8 Mar.
1773: ‘‘Died at Roxbury, Mr. Philip Searles, aged 88—what’s
remarkable in this good old man, he never was ten miles from
the Place he drew his first Breath.’’ He inherited his father’s
house and its eight-acre lot and sold it in three sales; the
house in 1769, in which, Deborah ‘‘my sister in token of her
free consent and relinquishment of her right to a room in said
house,’’ also signs. (Suffolk Deeds, 80: 45; 103: 13; 123: 184.)
As the last deed was not recorded until after Philip’s death, it
is probable that there was an unrecorded agreement that Philip
and Deborah should have life use of the premises.
iv. Mary, b. 20 Mar. 1686, living 1746, Stonington, Conn. It is
probable that when her father married again she went to live
in Stonington, either with her eldest brother, John, who died
there three years later, or with her uncle, Ebenezer® Searle. She
,
NOTES ON SOME IMMIGRANTS FROM OTTERY ST. MARY 93
was undoubtedly a resident there when her illegitimate son,
Benoni, was born. (New London County Court Records, 10:166,
paragraph 1.) In Court, she ‘‘Did there declare that Samuel
Calf a Transient Person was the father thereof.’’ [Samuel
Calef] Her fine was paid by ‘‘Mr. Ebenezer Searl of Stoning-
ton.’’ Her son, Benoni Searle, was b. 2 Oct. 1717 and named
a son, John-Ruggles Searle, after his great-grandfather,
v. HANNAH,* b. 26 Nov. 1687, d. 4 Nov. 1724, Framingham, Mass. ;
m. 21 May 1716, Watertown, Mass., SAMUEL SToNnE, who d.
30 Aug. 1726,+ Framingham. He m. (2), 25 Nov. 1725, there,
Mary Haven, who m. (2), 24 Sept. 1734, Ephraim Ward of
Newton, Mass. Children (Stone), born in Framingham, by
Hannah, (1) Hannah, b. 29 Apr. 1717; (2) Mary, b. 23 Jan.
1718-19; (3) Esther, b. 3 Aug. 1721, d. y.; (4) Matthias, b.
21 Oct. 1723, d. y.; (5) Nehemiah, b. 21 Oct. 1724, d. y.; by
Mary, (6) Samuel, b. 5 Oct. 1727, ‘‘son of Samuel, deceased
and Mary.’’+
vi. Resecca, b. prob. about 1690, d. 2 June 1709, Roxbury.
vii. MAar@aret, b. prob. about 1693; m. 31 Oct. 1735, Roxbury, JoHN
HewitTr. She was living in Roxbury in 1740, when she receipted
for her legacy from Ebenezer Searle; she was living, probably
there, when her father made his will in 1746; she was living,
and so was John Hewitt, when they joined the church in Rox-
bury, in 1754. No further record has been found and they may
have removed, possibly to Stonington, Conn., where the name is
not uncommon. They possibly had no children.
viii. DrBoraH, b. prob. about 1696, living unmarried in Roxbury, in
1769.
ix. JOSEPH, b. prob. about 1698, perhaps in 1705, living in 1746 and
probably the Joseph of Roxbury, aged 55, in 1760. (Mass,
Archives, 94:124, 87; 98: 281, 115, 118.) Ebenezer Searle made
no bequest to Joseph Searle, but a Joseph was living long after
Ebenezer’s death.
x. BENJAMIN, b. in 1701, aged 58, in 1759, died about 1760; m. 29
Aug. 1738, Dorchester, Mass., MARGARET ANGIER. She may have
been that Margaret, daughter of Joseph Angier, born there,
31 Mar. 1697, but if so, she was fifty-four when her last child
was born; or possibly this Margaret, born 1697, died and Joseph
Angier had another younger daughter of the same name. Ben-
jamin Searle went to Stonington, Conn., soon after his marriage
as his first child was born there. He probably returned to
Roxbury, soon after 1744. Benjamin, of Roxbury, served in the
French War, in 1760, reported died; having also served in 1749,
1755 and 1759; his 1759 service gives his age as 58. (Jbid.,
98: 293; 92: 166, 180; 98:105; 97:119.) Margaret was ap-
pointed administratrix of the estate of her late husband, Ben-
jamin Searle, late of Roxbury, weaver, deceased, and late in his
Majesty ’s service, 6 Mar. 1761. She was also made the admin-
istratrix of the estate of ‘‘her late Son Philip Searle, late a
Soldier,’’ in his Majesty’s service, with John Searle, Peruke-
maker, on her bond, both of Roxbury, the same date. (Suffolk
Probate, 12629 ; 12636.) Children (Searle), born in Stonington,
(1) John, b. 16 Apr. 1739, bapt., aged 17, 8 Aug. 1756, Roxbury,
First Church; (2) Margaret, b. 15 May 1740, bapt., aged 16,
8 Aug. 1756, Roxbury, First Church; (3) Philip, b. 30 Nov.
*The late J. Gardner Bartlett stated in his Stone Genealogy, that Samuel Stone m.
Hannah, daughter of Philip? Searle, but the will of John? Searle proves this to be an
error and shows that it was his daughter who was Stone’s wife.
+ There seems to be a discrepancy of a year in these two dates.
94 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
1742, d. 19 Nov. 1760, Albany, N. Y., in service; born in
Roxbury, (4) Deborah, b. 14 Dee. 1744, bapt. 17 Oct. 1762,
Roxbury, First Church; (5) Ruth, b. prob. about 1746, bapt.
17 Oct. 1762, Roxbury, First Church; (6) Benjamin, b. 27 June
1751,
5. (Philip', John), born in Ottery St. Mary,
Devon, 1 Mar. 1660, baptised there, 2 Mar. 1660, died in Rox-
bury, Mass., 17 Dee. 1722, aged sixty-two years. He married
there, 29 May 1690, Hannau EL .uis, born in 1659, died in Rox-
bury, 3 Jan. 1721-22, aged sixty-five years. She was probably
that Hannah, or Annah, Ellis, born in Dedham, Mass., 15 Mar.
1659, daughter of Richard and Elizabeth (French) Ellis.*
Philip Searle apparently lived all his life in Roxbury. He
made no will and no administration was taken on his estate. He
left no widow and only one surviving child, who apparently
entered into what property he left, without legal action.
Children, probably all born in Roxbury, Mass. :
i, HANNAH’, b. in 1692, d. 7 Aug. 1694, Roxbury.
ii. EBENEZER, b. 16 July 1694, d. 26 Jan. 1720, aged 25 years,
unmarried.
iii, HANNAH, b. 9 Apr. 1696; m. 1 Oct. 1723, Roxbury, WILLIAM
CuaRK. She was living there in 1739, and was left a bequest by
Ebenezer Searle of Stonington, Conn. Child (Clark), born in
Roxbury, William, b. 18 Oct. 1725.
iv. KATHARINE, b. in 1700, d. 11 Dee. 1717, in her 18th year, Ston-
ington (Gravestone Record); a. Dee. 1717, daughter of Philip
Searle of Roxbury (Stonington Vital Records). She is buried
beside John* Searle and his wife, Katharine, in the Wequetiquock
Yard, in Stonington.
On old page two of the Roxbury Land Records is the follow-
ing:
‘*Philip Searle sen. and Jonathan Torry transfer their right
of the halfe of the Nipmaug Land Granted to the General Court
to the Town of Roxbury which did belong to the stayers, unto
Roger Adams and his heirs forever he or they discharging all the
charges equitably required by reason thereof.’’ (Boston Record
Commissioners Reports, 6:1.)
As the items of pages two and three of the Report are dated
1639, although this one transfer bore no date, it was assumed
that it also was of that year. Therefore searchers have stated
that there was a Philip Searle Sr., and a Philip Searle Jr., here
in 1639. That this is not correct and that the above undated
item was written in the book later at a handy vacant space is
proven by several other records. Jonathan Torrey of Roxbury
was not born until 1659 and not able to sell land until 1681.
Roger Adams does not appear in the Roxbury Records until 1675,
* “Scott Genealogy,”’ by Mary Lovering Holman, Rumford Press, 1919.
|
THE THOMAS FAMILY OF LONDON, ENGLAND 95
when he had his son Thomas’ birth recorded. Further, the Nip-
muck lands were not bought from the Natick Indians by the
General Court until 27 May 1682. (Mass. Bay Colony Rec-
ords, V.) In other records, Philip Searle is not designated as
‘*Senior’’ until 1683. This sale could not have occurred before
1682 and it was probably several years later than that.
There was also a John Searle, who settled early in Springfield,
Mass., marrying there, 19 Mar. 1639, Sarah Baldwin. He died,
11 Aug. 1641, and left a son, John, from whom many of the
name descend.
[The second and concluding instalment will relate to the Salter and other
families. ]
THE THOMAS FAMILY OF LONDON, ENGLAND
(MATERNAL ANCESTRY OF LIEUTENANT Ropert FEAKE)
By CLARENCE ALMON TorREY, PH.B., of Dorchester, Mass.
It has long been known that the mother of Lieut. Robert
Feake, who came in the Winthrop Fleet in 1630, was Judith
Thomas, daughter of Robert Thomas, draper, of London, Eng-
land. A search of English records made in the interest of the
writer resulted in securing additional information about the
Thomas family. It was learned that Robert Thomas, draper,
was a man of very great wealth for the time in which he lived
and that his first wife, Judith’s mother, was Judith Fisher,
daughter of William Fisher. The marriage date of James Feake
and Judith Thomas is given, and the names of the members of
the Thomas family closely related to Robert Thomas are men-
tioned.
The records here given include the following items:
1. The Thomas pedigree at the College of Heraldry, London.
2. Abstracts of London parish records.
3. Allegations for Marriage License of Robert Thomas and
Margaret Thomas.
4. Abstracts of Thomas wills and administrations.
5. Abstract of the Inquisition Post Mortem of Robert Thomas.
6. Data from the Roll of the Drapers’ Company of London.*
* From the records of the Drapers’ Company it was learned that Robert Thomas secured
his freedom Apr. 12, 1568, from which it appears that he was born about 1547.
|
96 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
The Thomas Pedigree at the College of Heraldry, London
The information supplied in pedigree chart form is here con-
densed as follows:
Rosert THoMas, citizen and Draper of London. Died 8 June
1610, buried 26 same month. Judith Fisher, daughter of Wil-
liam Fisher, 1st wife. Ellen Muffett, 2nd wife. Children by
first wife :
Wituiam THomas, married Martha, daughter of William
Benett of London.
HuMPHREY THOMAS, second son, married Jane, daughter of
—— Cotton. Child: Robert Thomas.
JOHN THOMAS.
JupITH, married to ffeake of London, goldsmith; had issue.
Sara, married to George Southeott, Kt. of Dartmouth, co.
Devon. Child: Thomas Southcott.
Extracts from London Parish Records
1. The Registers of St. Nicholas Acons
Baptisms Page
1575 Suzan Thomas the Daughter of John Thomas, Dec. 18. 7
1578 Margaret Thomas the Daughter of John Thomas, July 13. 8
1580 An Thomas the Daughter of John Thomas, Sep. 11. 8
1582 Bartholmew Thomas the sonne of John Thomas, Sep. 2. 9
1607 Thomas Southcott the soonne of George Southcott knight, Feb. 14,
[1607/8]. 15
1610 Sara Southeott daughter of George Southeott, Knight, Oct. 7. 15
Marriages
1574 John Thomas and Jocamine Broghe, Jan. 23, [1574/5]. 62
1592 James ffeeke and Judith Thomas, Jan. 29, [1592/3]. 63
Burials
1582 Margaret Thomas, daughtt of John Thomas, Hosyer, Dee. 14. 92
1582 Suzan daughtr of the sayd Jo, Thomas, Dee. 16. 92
1582 Agnes, his [i.e. John Thomas’] daughtt, Jan. 3, [1582/3]. 92
1588 Judithe, wiefe of Mt Thomas, Drap. Mch. 6, [1588/9]. 94
1602 Edward Thomas, the sonne of Robert Thomas, Draper, Dec. 27. 98
1610 Mr Robert Thomas, wth Herrauld C &c. p. [pest], June 26. 100
1613 John Thomas, Draper, Sep. 12. 101
1615 Humfrey Thomas, draper, Feb. 12, [1615/16]. 101
1639 William Thomas Essquire, in the Valt on the sough side, Aug. 28. 109
2. The Registers of St. Pancras, Soper Lane
Marriage
1589 Robert Thomas of St Nicholas Acon & Ellen Lynaker of this par.
Jan. 26, [1589/90]. (Harleian Society Publications, vol. 45) 444
—
|
THE THOMAS FAMILY OF LONDON, ENGLAND 97
Burial
1588 William Lynakers, Nov. 20. (Harleian Society Publications,
vol, 44) 290
Allegations for Marriage Licences issued by the Bishop of London
1613 May 29, Robert Thomas, of St Botolph, Aldgate, London, Draper,
& Margaret Thomas, of St Alban’s, Wood Street, London, Spr, dau.
of Simon Thomas, dec4., at All Hallows Stayning, London.
(Harleian Society Publications, Vol. 26, page 21.)
Abstract of the Will of Robert Thomas, St. Katherines,
Dated 16. July 1557. Proved 15th June 1566. P. C. C. Crymes 17.
Rospert THomMAs of the precinct of St. Katherines by the Tower of London,
gunner,
To my son Ropert THOMAS my house that one RopertT ROWLE, mariner now
lives in,
To my daughter KaTHERINE THOMAS my house that Mrs, ELLETHE now
lives in,
To my daughter ALiceE THOMAS my house or tenements that I now live in,
after the decease [of] my wife ELIZABETH.
The rest of all my goods ete. to my said wife ELIzABeTH THOMAS. ;
ELIZABETH my wife sole executrix, and I will that she bring up our said
children in goodness and virtue.
Joun BAssetTr my uncle, of the said precinct, gunner, overseer.
Witnesses:—JouHN Bassett aforesaid, STEPHANE BuLL of the said precinct,
also gunner.
Probate 15th June 1566 to William Thomas, brother of the defunct.
Abstract of the Will of William Thomas of the Parish of St. Catherine’s
near the Tower. Dated 27 Oct. 1609. Proved 15 January 1609-10.
P. C. C. Wingfield 8.
WILLIAM THOMAS of the precinct of St. Catherine’s nigh the Tower of
London, servant to the King’s Majesty...
To be buried in the green churchyard in St. Catherine’s as near as may
be to the place where my former wife and children were laid
My loving wife Saka THOMAS shall have and enjoy the house in which I
now dwell in St. Catherine’s also the three tenements which are now in the
occupations of ALLEN MoNnTGoMERY THOMAS LEE and his tenant and the
lease that I hold of the same premisses in the name of one house made
from one MR MABEE to me... Further I give to said Sara all my goods
and chattels, ete.
Concerning the lease which I hold on divers tenements in Bush Alley in
St. Catherine’s made to one ARNOLD NEWMAR and passed to me by con-
veyance, I give and bequeath that lease to my loving cousin WILLIAM
Tuomas of East Smithfield, co. Middlesex, compassmaker, and Suzan his
wife except one room now in occupation of the aforesaid Tuomas Ler.
This room to remain to Sara my wife during the time, ete.
And for one obligation which I have to me made from my cousin RoBERT
Tuomas of London, draper, and William Thomas his son for them to
pay to my Executors or Assigns £300 within 6 months after my decease.
This sum to be distributed as follows:—
To the four children of said WittiamM THomas of East Smithfield £10
each.
To my cousin THoMAsS Hupson £10, and to his daughter £5.
To my cousin AGNES the wife of WILLIAM THISTLETON £20.
To her two sons £5 each.
To my cousin Margaret the wife of WittiaAmM Upner £20.
98 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
To her two daughters £5 each on their marriage day or at 21 years of age.
To my cousin RicHaRD Hupson in Lincolnshire 5£, as well as the £10
which I lent him.
To RopertT CoLLINGWorTH in Lincolnshire £10, and to my cousin Honor
COLLINGWORTH and her sister ELizaBerH £5 each. And to the children
of RicHarp Hupson, CoLLINGWoRTH, and ELIZABETHE sister of
Honor, I give £30 to be divided equally among them, on their attaining
the age of 21 or on their marriages.
To the two daughters of FRrRaNcIS GIDFEILD, namely ELLEN and AGNES
£20 each at the age of 21 or on their marriages.
To JOHN OVENDALL £5.
To the poor of the ‘‘french Church’’ in London £5.
40 shillings to the poor of St. Catherine’s.
To Mary Futuer 20 shillings and to Mr RANDALL PARKER preacher in St.
Catherine’s 40 shillings.
Executors:—Wife Sara; my cousin JAMES Fexe of London, goldsmith:
said WILLIAM THOMAS, cousin in East Smithfield: and
EDMUND ANSELL my kinsman..
To JAMES FEXE and EDMUND ANSELL each a silver cup of 8 ounces.
Overseers:—Cousin Rospert THoMas, of London, draper; cousin JOHN
Tuomas of St. Catherine’s.
To JoHN THOMAS my furred gown.
Witnesses: —THOMAS ABBOT, sci: JOHN GREENE: THOMAS LEE.
Probate granted to Executors.
Abstract of the Will of Robert Thomas, St. Nicholas Acons.
Dated 14. Feb. 1609-10. Proved 12. Oct. 1610. P. C. C. 88 Wingfield.
RosBerT THOMAS, citizen and draper of London, of the parish of St. Nicholas
Acon, London.
My body to the earth.
I stand bound to one WILLIAM Murrett, late of Chippinge Barnett, Co.
Hertford, gent. deceased and to his Exors and Administrators to leave to
my present wife ELLEN THomAs the sum of £2000 at the time of my
death. To ELLEN THoMAs... and all such plate as she brought with her
now being in my house, so the property is not altered. To her my house
in which I live. She shall care for my children.
I have given to my eldest son WILLIAM THomAs £500 to set up his trade
and £300, which I bestowed on copyhold lands for him, which I bought of
my uncle WILLIAM THOMAS, late of St. Katherines. And also in considera-
tion of a marriage with Mrs. BENETTE’s daughter have assured him and
his heirs males my lands called Spenbye in Lincoln, being to the value
of £3000. Yet nevertheless I bequeath to Sir Georck Sourucorr, Knight
and Humrrey THoMAS my exors. £800 to allow him a yearly portion of
£60 only for his maintenance. An Indenture tripartite made between his
father-in-law Mr. BENET, himself and myself touching the settling of my
land Spendye [sic].
Upon my son Humrrey’s marriage I assured and made over to him the
house he now lives in and £500 stock, which house and stock cost me £1000
and did also enter into bond with one Mr. SILLYarp to leave my son £1000
more.
Also to his (HumMrrey’s) son Rospert £100. And also further to him all
my lands in Essex called Dagman with 12 acres of Marsh by the Thames
side, which one JOHN Harpwoop now holds. To my son JoHN THOMAS
£1500 provided he makes a general release of all actions and demands, the
said legacies excepted. My shop in Candleweekestreete and all the rest of
those houses that are upon the same lease to son JOHN.
Lands in Hartfordshire with my copyhold there called Beech Hide to my
son HuMrrey THOMAS and to his heirs.
|
THE THOMAS FAMILY OF LONDON, ENGLAND 99
To my brother Symon Tuomas, his two daughters £70 apiece to be paid to
them the day of their marriages.
To my daughter JupirH Frake £1000 in full satisfaction of her marriage
money and child’s part. To her four children JAMges, Ropert, ALICE and
JupDITH £100 apiece.
JAMES FEAKE, my son-in-law ‘hathe given out threatening wordes that he
would go to law with me for his portion.’ If the said JAMEs refuses to
release my exors. from all Actions and demands, within a quarter of a
year after my decease, then this my said legacy to his wife with the
legacies to his children are cancelled, and 1 leave him to be relieved by the
law.
To my daughter the Lady Sara Sourucorr and to her husband £1000. To
her son THoMas Soutuoorr £100 to be bestowed in land to the use of him
and his mother. To Sara THOMAS, my brother WILLIAM’s daughter £10
at the day of her marriage.
To my maid servant Mary HANpDLyE £10.
To the relief of the poor children in Christ’s Hospital in London £10.
To the Company of Drapers whereof I am free £20 for a dinner to the
Livery of the same Company, who go to my funeral,
Executors:—Sir GrorcE SouTucorr, Knight, HuMrrey THOMAS.
Overseers:—My brother WILLIAM THomMAs, and I give to him a black gown,
and to his wife a black gown, my son-in-law JAMES FEAKE,
and CLEMENT BuckKE, and to each of them and their wives
black gowns.
Witnesses: —HuMFrREY CLARKE, HUGH FARYE.
Memorandum. Alterations were made 6, June 1610 in the presence of
Humrrey WERE, CLEMENT BucKE, JOHN CURWEN, and
THOMAS ASTLEY.
Probate:—12th Oct. 1610 to GrorGe Sourucorr, Knight and HuMFREyY
THoMAS, Executors.
Abstract of the Will of John Thomas, of St. Nicholas, London.
Dated 8th Sept. 1618. Proved 15th Sept. 1613. P. C. C. 79 Capeli.
JOHN THOMAS, citizen and draper of London.
To be buried in the parish church of St. Nicholas, near Lumberdstreate in
London as near the place where my late father and mother are buried as
possible.
At my funeral there is to be a sermon preached by Mr, Daye, sometimes
preacher in St. Magnus Church near Newefishstreet, London, to whom I
give 40s.
There is owing to me the sum of £500 by Sir Georce Sourucore, knight,
of the legacy of my late father Ropert THOMAS, deceased.
From the £500:—
to Sir George £5, to his wife Dame Sara Sourucorr £5, to their son
Rosert SouTucorr £50, to my sister Mrs, FEAKE, wife of JAMES FEAKE and
his children £150 equally amongst them, to my brother WILLIAM THOMAS
£30, to my cousin Ropert THOMAs, son of my brother Humrrey THOMAS
£50, to Sara HILL, wife of RicHarp HI., draper, £100.
To my brother HumMrrey THomas £5. To my uncle WILLIAM THomas and
his wife 40 s. apiece for rings.
To THomas AGar Clothworker £5. To THomas AsTLEY 40 s. To JOHN
MAXWELL 40 s. To RicHArD WESTRAWE 40 s.
To my loving brother-in-law JAMES FEAKE, GOLDSMITH [ ?
To my friend WILLIAM SaLgs, merchant tailor a ring with a ruby.
Executor:—JAMES FEAKE.
Overseers—My brother HuMFrrREY THOMAS, my uncle WILLIAM THOMAS.
Witnesses:—Epwarp CHARNOCK, writer, [?] Watson and THomas Wan-
NERTON, servant to the writer.
Probate:—15th Sept. 1613, to James FrakeE, Exor.
100 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Administrations in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
1559-1571
Page
1560 3 Dee. John Thomas, citizen and draper of London, to sister
Eliz. Wace, als. T. 14
1562 19 Sep. Anne Thomas, als. Plommer, Oxford (Oxon.), wid., to
son James T., als. P. 31
1562 ult. Oct. Amy Thomas, als. Plommer, Oxford (Oxon.), wid., to
daur. Elizabeth Wace, als. Thomas, als, Plommer. 32
1565 23 Nov. Robert Thomas, city of London, ‘‘goonu’’ ?gunner, to
relict Elizabeth T. 64
Abstract of the Inquisition Post Mortem of Robert Thomas, Gent.
Writ. 14 Aug. 10 Jas. 1 (1612).
Inquisition, Brentwood, Essex, 28 June. 11 Jas. 1 (1613).
Dagenham. A messuage called ‘‘Pettitts,’? near Edristreet; tenure un-
known; worth 40/- p.a. 10a. land in le West marshe, called ‘‘Oxlease als.
Oxenlease’’; held of the King in chief by knight service, by what part of
a knight’s fee is unknown; worth 40/- p.a. By his will, dated 14 Feb.
7 Jas. 1 (1609/10), [extract given], he left £1000 to his son Humfrey;
£100, and his lands called ‘‘Dagman,’’ with 12 a. marsh by the Thames,
to his grandson Robarte, son of Humfrey. He died in the parish of
St. Nicholas Acon, London, 26 May 8 Jas. 1 (1610). Heir his son William
Thomas, aged 36 and upwards at the taking of the inquisition.
Chancery Inq. p.m. Series 2, Vol. 545, no. 87.
Court of Wards Ing. p.m. Vol. 89, no. 333.
Drapers’ Apprentices Before 1610 of the Name of Thomas.
Thomas, William, 1488 A. to George Bulstrode.
Sampson, 1510 A. to Richard Forth, made free 1514.
David, 1532 made free by Sir William Balye.
William, 1533 free by William Wyfold.
William, 1546 A. to Walt Williams, free 1553 Oct. 11.
1571 frees his apprentice Lodowick Croft.
1573 frees his apprentice William Thomas.
John, 1547 A. to Richard Champion, free 1554.
second master George Palmer.
1560 Dee. 3. Admon P. C. C. to sister Elizabeth Wase
als. Thomas.
John, 1551, A. to Robert Taylor.
John, 1553, A. to Thomas Calton, free 1561.
Henry, 1559, A. to Richard Bynd, free 1567, March 23
other masters Richard Lamb, Richard Carter.
Robert, 1559 A. to William Carow, free 1568 April 12
1583 frees his apprentice Jervise Eyre
1593, 1599, 1601, warden; 1606 master
1590 frees his apprentice Edward Handen
1610 P. C. C. 88 Wingfield, many relations.
1598 loan to Queen £20.
1610 June 26 bur. with Heralds St. Nicholas Acons
Abbreviation.
A after a date indicates that that is the year when the apprentice was
bound,
From the English records in this paper we have learned that
Robert Thomas, wealthy draper of London, had brothers Wil-
liam and Simon Thomas, and uncles William Thomas and Robert
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 101
Thomas of St. Katherine by the Tower, London. Although we
have the names of two uncles of Robert Thomas, draper, we lack
the names of his parents.
His niece, Margaret Thomas, daughter of his brother Simon
Thomas, married in 1613, by licence, Robert Thomas of St.
Botolph, Aldgate. The groom and bride were probably rela-
tives but the relationship has not been learned. The John Thomas
mentioned in the register of St. Nicholas Acons was probably a
relative of Robert Thomas, draper.
The baptisms of Robert’s children have not been found in any
of the printed records of London churches. The records of some
of the churches, including those of St. Botolph, Aldgate, have
not been published.
The will of his uncle William Thomas mentions a cousin
[?nephew] William Thomas of East Smithfield, co. Middlesex,
and relatives in Lincolnshire. Perhaps Robert’s father and
uncles were born in Lincolnshire.
If the earlier history of this branch of the Thomas family is
secured, the information will be offered to Tuk AMERICAN GEN-
EALOGIST for publication.
‘GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
By Herpert F. SEversMITH, M.A., of Washington, D. C.
[Continued from Vol. 15, p. 207]
Ill. The Norton Family of Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire.
Probably no American pedigree is of more antique vintage
than the chart which the Reverend John Norton is supposed to
have brought with him, and which delineated his connection with
the Sharpenhoe family. It is a work of art of the notorious John
Philipot, Somerset Herald, no doubt accepted by the family in
good faith; but in some parts it clearly rivals the extraordinary
mendacities of the late lamented Baron Munchausen. Our
experience with this family has been confined to checking it for
possible connections to George Norton of Salem, Massachusetts,
and while the following analysis is by no means exhaustive, it has
taken but little investigation to drastically correct the pedigree.
It starts off blithely with ‘‘Le Signr (Seigneur or Sieur) de
Norvile’’ who came into England with William the Conqueror,
was his Constable, and married into the house of Valois. This
patronymic (not then such, but allegedly destined to develop into
one) is supposed to represent nord-ville (ville du nord, i. e. north
102 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
town) and by transliteration developed into Norton. It seems,
however, that the appellation de Norvile survived for seven gen-
erations, in spite of English surroundings, no doubt because of
the influence of the Norman families into which it would seem to
have married.
The six Seigneurs de Norvile after the Conqueror’s Constable
married respectively heiresses of the houses of Barr, Dalbemonte,
Neville of Raby, Dampre de Court, Hadscoke and Bassing-
bourne; and the chart is emblazoned with their heraldry. We
do not find the families of Dalbemonte, Dampre de Court or
Hadsecoke. An examination of the Neville family shows inter-
marriages with the Conyers-Norton family of Yorkshire, but
nothing that satisfies the requirements of Philipot’s pedigree.
In The Herald and Genealogist, edited by John Gough Nichols,
F. 8. A., vol. III (1866), at p. 276, we find a review of a reprint
of the article which appeared in 1859 in the New England His-
torical and Genealogical Register, vol. 13, p. 225. This review by
the editor, who was a noted antiquarian and genealogist, fore-
shadows our experience:
An old pedigree of the Nortons of Sharpenhoe in Bedfordshire, having been
preserved in America, in the possession of a junior branch of the family,
is here edited by Mr. W. H. Whitmore, the indefatigable genealogist of
New England. It is one of the performances of John Philipot, Somerset,
anno 1632: but it is evidently tainted with the romantic ingredients to
which even the official heralds condescended at that period. To an experi-
enced eye the title alone is sufficient (he quotes the notes leading off to
the pedigree discussed below) ....
The imaginary alliances as we may make free without hesitation
to term them, are, into the house of Valois, the house of Barr,
that of Dalbemonte, a daughter of Nevil of Raby, Joricia, daughter of
Sigr. Dampre de Court, the daughter of Sir John Hadscoke, and even we
should say the daughter and coheiress of Monsignr. Bassingbourne, and
the daughter of the Lord Grey de Ruthyn.
To the last two, however, it is true that some other testimony occurs. In
the MS. Harl. 1546, p. 102b, is a pedigree which states that a certain
Sir John Norton of Battle, in Sussex, (the son of John Norton of the same
place), married a daughter of the Lord Grey de Ruthyn, and was father of
Thomas Norton, whose daughter Catharine was married to Thomas Windowt,
alderman of London. But in the pedigree before us the father of Catharine
is described as Thomas Norland, alderman of London, who became the
second husband of Agnes, widow of Sir John Winger, alderman, that Agnes
being daughter of William Walker by Joane Norton, daughter of ‘‘Sir
John Norton alias Norvile, who married the daughter of the Lord Grey de
Ruthyn.’’ Ve suspect that about this there was some intentional
mystification. ...
But we are not yet done. These seven generations of de Nor-
viles are held to have been antecedent to this Sir John Norton
of Battle in Sussex. The succession comes through his son John,
who had John; the latter by a second wife Jane Cowper had
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 103
(among others) a son Thomas Norton. The son of this Thomas
was also a Thomas, the one before-mentioned as having married
the daughter of Archbishop Cranmer, and who was lord of the
Manor of Sharpenhoe. With this Thomas, information concern-
ing the connections becomes more detailed. We know that the
second Thomas Norton, lord of the Manor of Sharpenhoe, was
born in 1532. From this it will be seen that the eleven genera-
tions which are listed as having preceded him did so through a
span of approximately five hundred years, for the Conquerer’s
Constable, if he were pounding his beat in 1066, was born about
1032. It takes little mathematics to show that the average span
of these generations is 45.5 years apiece. This, in a presumed
senior line of descent, is thoroughly improbable.
The Nortons of Sharpenhoe bore for arms: Gules a fret argent,
over all a bend vaire or and of the field; and as Nichols states
in his review, it is true that the same coat is attributed to the
Seigneur de Norvile in Glover’s Ordinary. Nevertheless Nichols
could not find where the de Norviles were located, and his sus-
picions that the armorial bearing was entirely imaginary were
not removed by the absence of this coat from the ancient rolls
of arms edited for the Society of Antiquaries by Messrs. Perceval
and Walford, as well as those edited by Sir Harris Nicholas. We
have found the arms respited for lack of proof in pedigrees made
in the Visitations of 1634.
It is probably safe to start this pedigree with JoHN Norton,
ealled of Sharpenhoe, who was born, we estimate, about 1440.
The name of his wife is not given; but he was evidently of yeo-
man stock, and a tenant of the Manor of Sharpenhoe. His
children are listed as John, Jane, Isabel and Alice. No alliances
are given for the daughters.
The second JonHn Norton was born say about 1470. He mar-
ried twice, first to a Danie, so-called, by whom he had a
son William, who died young. His second wife was Joan Cowper,
daughter of a John Cowper; and by her he had children who
are of record in legal instruments. These were:
+ 1. Thomas, married 1, Elizabeth Merry; 2, Elizabeth (Marshall)
Radcliffe; 3, Elizabeth ( ) Osborne, widow.
+ 2. Richard, married Margery Wingate.
3. Robert, a resident at Sharpenhoe, made his will December 28,
1558. An abstract is printed in Bedfordshire Notes and
Queries, vol, III, p. 212. He calls himself yeoman, and
requests to be buried in the churchyard of the parish church of
Streatley. His brother, Thomas Norton; latter’s son Thomas
and daughter Alice. The nephew Thomas is to receive one
half of an acre of land holden of the manor of Sharpenhoe.
Brother Edward, sister Alice; niece Jane, daughter of his
brother Richard. His five god-children, viz., Barnabas, son
of his brother Thomas; Isaac, son of his brother John;
Thomas, son of his brother Richard, etc.; to each a bullock.
|
|
|
104 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
Mentions Mark Norton, son of his brother Mark. Appoints
brothers Richard and William executors; the will was probated
at Woburn, October 23, 1559. Apparently no issue, although
an ambiguous passage in the abstract could lead to an infer-
ence that he had a son Thomas. The disposition of the prop-
erty, however, precludes such a conclusion.
4. Alice, married 1, Goodrich; 2, Thomas Decon.
5. Edward, who is mentioned in the will of his brother Robert, and
in that of his sister-in-law Margery (Wingate) Norton. Pos-
sibly incompetent.
+ 6. John, married 1, Preston; 2, Agnes Spicer.
7. Mark, known from the will of his brother Robert; married and
had at least
i. Mark, born before December 15, 1558.
8. William, executor of the will of his brother Robert. Descen-
dants not traced; he is probably ancestor of a number of
families recorded in various Bedfordshire parish registers.
1. THomas Norton, son of John Norton and Joan Cowper,
was born probably at Sharpenhoe about 1500, died at the Manor
house there after a protracted illness and very aged, March
10, 1582/3. He was in 1532 a resident of London, and is reported
to have become wealthy. He was first lord of the Manor of
Sharpenhoe of his name, according to Robert Edmond Chester
Waters, Esq., B.A., who discusses these connections in his Gen-
ealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley,
vol. 2, pages 387 and those following. Therein it is stated that
upon the death of Thomas in 1582/3 his son Thomas succeeded
to the Manor, although Waters gives no Inquisition post mortem
for the first Thomas. That the first Thomas was the one who
bought the Manor is indicated by Bedfordshire Notes and Quer-
ies, vol. I, page 320, where there is recited Letters Patent under
the Great Seal from the King to Thomas Norton of the advowson
and Rectory of Streatley. The patent is dated 24 September 36
Henry VIII (1545), calls him a grocer, and grants him a mes-
suage and tenement called Sonne situate and lying in the parish
of St. Mary Wolnoth in Lombard Street, within the city of Lon-
don; and also the advowson and Rectory mentioned. As the
second Thomas Norton was no grocer, this is clearly the first
Thomas.
In the Victoria County History of Bedfordshire, vol. II, p. 382,
the inference is clearly that the second Thomas Norton was the
purchaser of the Manor, which it states was bought in 1578. It
states that Thomas Norton died in 1584 seized of the Manor,
which is true; but it does not mention the old gentleman who
seems to have bought the place when he was probably in his late
seventies. We quote this record further in discussing the sue-
cession of the manor, q. v.
Thomas Norton senior married three times, first to Elizabeth,
daughter of Robert Merry of Northall, by whom he had three
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 105
children, including Thomas junior. His second and third wives,
although their order is disputed, were Elizabeth Marshall, daugh-
ter of Robert Marshall of Hitcham, Hertfordshire, widow of
Ralph Radcliffe; and Elizabeth, widow of Mr. Peter Osborne,
by both of whom he had issue.
His third and last wife had been brought up in her youth in
the house of Sir Thomas More, and her ednecation had been such
that she had ‘‘fancies which haunted her latter days, and drove
her to distraction.’’ She drowned herself in the Thames shortly
before her husband’s death. According to Durrant Cooper in
Archaeologia, vol. 36, part 1, this third wife was niece of Sir
Nicholas Hare, and widow of Peter Osborne, gentleman, one-
time Remembrancer of the Exchequer; yet Waters in his Gene-
alogical Memoirs would have us believe that she was Elizabeth
Marshall, widow of a schoolmaster, Ralph Radcliffe of Hitchin,
and who had died in 1559. Reeorded pedigrees and the evidences
offered by Cooper seem to show that the widow Osborne was the
unfortunate third wife, and Elizabeth (Marshall) Radcliffe the
second.
The children of Thomas Norton and Elizabeth Merry were:
9. Margaret, married Symonds.
+10. Thomas, married 1, Margaret Cranmer; 2, Alice Cranmer.
11. Joan, married 1, Spicer; 2, Barrett.
Child, by Elizabeth (Marshall) Radcliffe :
+12. Luke, married Lettice Graveley.
Children, by Elizabeth ( ) Osborne :
13. Daniel.
14, Barnabas.
15. Isaac.
2. RicHarp Norton, son of John Norton and Jane Cowper,
was born about 1505, probably at Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire.
In The Visitation of London, A. D. 1633, 1634, 1635, as edited by
Joseph Jackson Howard and published by The Harleian Society
(vol. 17, p. 128) this Richard is given as the ancestor of Richard
Norton of London who married Ellen Rowley (cf). The arms
are stated to have been respited.
The will of Richard Norton of Sharpenhoe, Bedford, yeoman,
was dated July 24, 1565 and probated January 16, 1566 (Ston-
arde, L. 2) ; an abstract may be found in the Essex Institute His-
torical Collections, vol. 17, p. 97. According to this he gives lands
in Streatley (the parish in which Sharpenhoe was located) to
son Richard, then to William, then to Daniel, then to Thomas (by
reversion), and so to his right heirs; mentions his brother
Edward Wingat(e) ; five pounds due by the wills of his mother
106 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
and brother Robert. His daughter Johane, daughter Hill, cousin
[nephew] John Norton, brother Thomas Norton; to every one of
his daughter Wynche’s children; his sons William Wynche and
Edward Hill.
He married Margery Wyngate,* daughter of Robert Wyngate
of Sharpenhoe, Beds, by his first wife Joane Porter. The will of
Margery (Wyngate) Norton, dated June 26, 1571, was probated
November 25, 1572. An abstract is given in the Essex Institute
Historical Collections as mentioned above, and Nichols also gives
a more complete abstract in his review in vol. III of the Herald
and Genealogist. She left to her son Daniel forty pounds, two
silver spoons and other things, when he became 24. To her
daughter Hill, thirty pounds; if she died before her, the same
to be equally divided among her children. To Marie Hill, her
goddaughter [and probably granddaughter] ten pounds; if she
die, the same to her brother Richard at 24. To her daughter Hill
and her daughter Wynshe various articles of dress. To Margaret
Wingate a petticoat. To Susan Winshe 6 13s 4d on her mar-
riage ; if she died, the same to.her sister, Jane Winshe. To her
daughter Winshe a silver salt. To Thomas Winshe her godson
[and probably grandson] 50s now in the hands of his father
William Winshe. To Thomas Wingate 3s 4d he owed her, and
6s 8d to her cousin [probably nephew] George Wingate; and
48s 6d that he owed her. To every one of her daughter Winshe’s
children at home, one sheep. To her brother Edward Norton,
one sheep. To her brother Wingate 10s. To her sister Shorte
10s. To Mr. Watts, vicar of Streatley, 3s 4d to make a sermon
at her burial. Residue to her son William Norton. Witness:
Thomas Norton. Executors, her son William Norton and son-in-
law William Winshe. Overseers, her brother Edward Wingate
and son-in-law Edward Hill. (Daper, L. 40)
The children of Richard Norton and Margery Wingate were:
16. Richard, born about 1545, probably without issue.
+17. William, married 1, Margaret Hawes; 2, Dionys or Dionysia
Cholmondeley.
18. Daniel, not 24 in 1566.
19. Thomas, who married Anne, daughter of Thomas Pratt, and
who had at least
i. Thomas.
20. A daughter, who married Edward Hill and had issue.
A daughter who married William Wynch or Winshe and had
issue.
22. Johane (unless one of the preceding).
6. JoHN Norton, son of John Norton and Jane Cowper, was
born about 1510, probably at Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire; and
had died before January 15, 1583. According to the pedigrees
* Miscalled Wingar in pedigrees.
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 107
he married 1, Preston, by whom he had one child; 2,
Agnes Spicer, who survived him. Her will, as of Agnes Norton
of Streatley, widow, was dated January 15, 1583. She was to
be buried in the church yard at Streatley; to son William, five
pounds, ete.; to son John, six pounds; to son Thomas, five
pounds; to daughter Agnes, five ;~ inds; to daughter Jane, five
pounds, and to youngest daughter Margaret, five pounds, ete.
To her husband’s son Isaack, a flitch of bacon and to each of his
children 5s apiece. Makes son William executor and neighbor
William Moreton supervisor. Proved, 10 February, 1583.
Child, by first wife :
23. Isaae, who married and had two children in 1583,
Children, by second wife:
24. William, executor of his mother’s will.
25. John.
26. Thomas,
27. Agnes.
28. Jane.
29. Margaret.
10. THomas Norton, son of Thomas Norton and Elizabeth
Merry, his first wife, was born in London, England, in 1532.
Waters calls him the eldest son of a wealthy citizen of the same
name, who purchased from the Crown the Manor of Sharpenhoe.
The following record is abridged from the same account (cf.
Genealogical Memoirs) supplemented by other sources as noted.
He was not educated at either Cambridge or Oxford, but when
a youth became amanuensis to the Protector Somerset. He seems
to have been precocious, for it is stated that he published an
admirable translation of a communication which Peter Martyr
wrote to the Duke of Somerset on his enlargement from the
Tower. In 1555 he was admitted to the Inner Temple as a
student for the Bar; his favorite studies were theology and
poetry.
In 1561 he completed as co-author the tragedy on which his
fame as poet chiefly rests: Gorboduc, the earliest regular drama
in blank verse in the English language. This was written by
Norton in collaboration with Sackville for the Christmas revels
at the Inner Temple.
In 1562 he was retained as standing counsel for the Station-
ers’ Company, and on February 6, 1570/1 he was appointed
Remembrancer of the City of London. In 1571 he was elected
a member of Parliament for London, wherein he served for a
number of sessions. He was created M.A. by the University of
Cambridge on June 10, 1570. This last honor followed upon his
translation of Nowell’s Latin Catechism (in quarto), the last
work of importance which he found time to write.
—
108 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
The record of his subsequent career is not happy. Influenced
by his second wife Alice, he became notorious for his persecution
of the Catholics. In his zeal to pursue certain phases of Eliza-
bethan policy he travelled to Rome in 1579, and his diary, which
contains an account of this journey, is still extant. Upon his
return to London, March 18, 1579/80, he was appointed licenser
of the press by the Bishop of London, who styled him ‘Counsellor
and Solicitor of the City of London.’ This appointment armed
him with new authorities against books of proscribed religious
tendencies, and he became known as archicarnifex or rackmaster
of London by his enemies. In 1581 he was authorized by the
Privy Council to put several prisoners to the rack for politico-
theological heresies, and the character of his inquisition is shown
in his treatment of Alexander Briant, a seminary priest, whom
he told before he was racked that ‘‘if he wolde not for his dutie
to God and the Quene tell truth, he should be made a foote
longer than God made him.”’
He was placed in prison late in 1581 for some rash statements,
and through the intercession of Sir Christopher Hutton he was
liberated before April 10, 1582, on which date he wrote Sir
Christopher a grateful letter, thanking him. In the latter he
bitterly complained that his ‘disgrace’ had given triumph to the
enemies of God; and he deplored the lamentable estate of his
poor wife ‘‘whereof I am not yet in full hope of recovery, and
her loss were my utter worldly destruction.’’
The wife mentioned was his second, Alice Cranmer. She is
reported to have been a woman of a tempestuous temper, and
later relapsed into intermittent insanity, finally to become a
confirmed lunatic.
He succeeded his father as lord of the Manor of Sharpenhoe
in March of 1582/3 and in May of the same year (1583) he
settled the Manor house on his wife together with an annuity.
He was again imprisoned in the Tower on some now unknown
cause for high treason, but again effected his release shortly
before March, 1583/4. The term, however, had broken his health,
and he died in residence at Sharpenhoe, March 10, 1583/4,
exactly one year after his father. In the subsequent proceedings
relative to the estate his widow is stated to have resided with her
eldest daughter Anne, wife of George Coppin; she lived a con-
siderable number of years afterwards, for she is of record on
February 11, 1601/2.
Thomas Norton made a nuncupative will on his deathbed,
which was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury April
15, 1584 (Butt., L. 35), by Thomas Cranmer, his wife’s brother,
then Registrar of Canterbury. The usual inquest after his death
was held at Luton June 27, 1584, when it was found that his
widow was living at Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, and that his
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 109
eldest son and heir was Henry Norton, then aged thirteen years,
eight months and twenty days.
Thomas Norton married first, Margaret Cranmer, daughter of
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, by whom he had no issue. He
married second, her cousin, Alice Cranmer, daughter of
Edmund and Alice (Sands) Cranmer, who is stated to have been
the mother of his children. The lists given in the pedigrees have
been found to omit at least two of his sons, one of whom, Chris-
topher, is known from his will, and the other, Walter, from
documents relating to the succession of the Manor.
The succession of the Manor is referred to in the Victoria
County History of Bedford, vol. 2, p. 382 under the section
devoted to Sharpenhoe in Flitt Hundred :
Edward Mordaunt ..... sold (the Manor of Sharpenhoe in 1578) to
Thomas Norton (Feet of Fines, Beds., Hilary term, 21 Eliz., Recov, R.
Hilary 21 Eliz., Common Pleas D. enrolled Hilary 21 Eliz.). The latter
died in 1584 [sic] seized of the manor, leaving a son Henry Norton, then
aged 13 (Chancery Inquisitions post mortem: ser. 2, cciii, no. 38) who in
1604 settled the manor on his brother Robert Norton and his heirs male,
with reversion to William and Walter Norton and their heirs male (Feet
of Fines, Beds., 2 James I—Hil. 4 James I), and they, in 1610, sold
Sharpenhoe manor to their uncle Luke Norton, who held it at his death in
1630 (ibid., Trin. 8 James I; Mich. 8 James I; Harleian Society Publica-
tions, xix). Graveley Norton succeeded his father Luke, and in 1646
(Chan, Ing. p. m., ser. 2, cecelxv, no. 38) sold the Sharpenhoe estates for
£3,050 to William Wheeler of Silsoe...... In 1626 a settlement was
made of the manor on the occasion of the marriage of Graveley Norton,
son and heir of Luke Norton, with Helen Angell (Feet of Fines, Beds.,
2 Charles 1). Lettice, sister of Graveley, and wife of Richard Norton, was
receiving an annual rent of £40 out of the manor in 1647 (ibid., Trin.
23 Charles I), in which year she renounced her claim to William Wheeler,
who had bought the manor.
The children of Thomas Norton and Alice Cranmer were:
+30. Henry, married 1, Elizabeth ; 2, Sarah Lawson.
+31. Robert, married Anne Hare or Hoare.
32. William, executor of the will of his brother Christopher in 1603,
married Ruth Harding. Issue not traced.
33. Thomas, who died at Cambridge before his father.
34. Christopher, of London, who made his will April 18, 1603. He
mentions his sister Coppin, sister Margaret, sister Rainsford ;
cousin William Cranmer; brothers Robert and Captain Walter
Norton, the last executor. Captain Walter Norton refused the
trust, and commission was issued February 28, 1603 to William
Norton, brother of the deceased. No issue.
+35. Walter Norton, married 1, Jane (Reeve) Reynolds; 2, Eleanor
36. Anne, married Sir George Coppin of Norwich.
37. Margaret.
38. Elizabeth, married 1, Miles Rainsford; 2, Simon Bassell.
12. Luke Norton, son of Thomas Norton and Elizabeth
(Marshall) Radcliffe, born probably about 1550-5, perhaps
slightly later, was a resident of Sharpenhoe in Bedfordshire. He
x
110 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
held the Manor of Sharpenhoe by reversion from 1610, and his
connections are of frequent reference in Bedfordshire Notes and
Queries, vols. I, II and III. He recites his pedigree in the Visi-
tation of Bedfordshire, A. D. 1566, 1582 and 1634 as edited by
Frederic Augustus Blaydes, and published by the Harleian
Society in vol. 19 of their publications at page 128; it augments
the account given in the New England Historical and Genealogi-
cal Register as herein quoted. Luke Norton was admitted to the
Inner Temple in 1583. It does not appear why the estate of
Sharpenhoe finally descended to his family, unless it may be
hazarded that the other members of the family could not sustain
the Manor, or disliked its associations.
He married Lettice Graveley, daughter of George Graveley of
Hitchin, Hertfordshire; their children were
39. Graveley, born before 1600, a resident of Sharpenhoe, and of
the Inner Temple, London; married Ellen, daughter of William
Angell, sergeant of the Acatery to King James. Issue.
40. Benjamin of London, a linen draper, who married about 1629
to Bridget, daughter of William Angell, by whom he had
i. Lettice, born in 1631.
ii. Mary.
iii. Constance.
41. Thomas Norton, a silkman in Lombard St. in London.
42. Anne, married Eustace Needham of Little Wimondley, Herts.
43. Lettice, who married 1, Robert Cheney of Bramhanger in Luton
parish, Beds., and 2, Richard Norton of London, son of
William Norton and his second wife Dionys Cholmondeley; as
his second wife.
44. Elizabeth, married the Rev. Stephen Pierce of Hitchin, Herts.
45. Martha, married Thomas Coppin of Marketcell, Herts.
46. Susan, married John Berners of Tharfield.
47. Talbot, married Thomas Rotheram, of Farley.
17. WuituiAm Norton, son of Richard Norton and Margery
Wingate, was born probably at Sharpenhoe about 1545. Rela-
tively little is found of record concerning him except that he is
called the father of Richard Norton of London, who signed a
Visitation pedigree in 1634. It is stated that he married 1, Mar-
garet Hawes, daughter of William Hawes by whom he had one
child; and 2, Dionys or Dionysia Cholmondeley, who was buried
at Streatley, Beds., May 7, 1628.
Child by first wife, Margaret Hawes:
48. William, born about 1575, probably at Sharpenhoe, married
Alice Bownest or Bonus, daughter of John and Mercy Bownest
of Buckland, Hertfordshire. The will of John Bownest is
filed in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury at 70 Rudd, and
was dated 15 June, 1615; it mentions lands in Buntingford
and in Aspeden; his wife Mercy (called Marcey in the text),
brother Thomas, son George, son Samuel; son-in-law William
Norton (to whom he wills a debt due to him of £400 and owed
by John Shadbolt, Esq.); daughter Frances, not married;
|
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 111
mentions grandchildren but not by name. The wife Mercy
proved the will July 14, 1615. This will was abstracted for
the late Evelyn B. Baldwin of Washington, D. C., who con-
sidered John Bownest a relative of James Bonus, who married
Jane, daughter of Henry and Alice (Kinge) Baldwin of Dun-
> dridge, Buckinghamshire. (See the Baldwin Genealogy by
/ Charles Candee Baldwin.) William Norton perhaps married
second, at Streatley, January 13, 1623, Dorothy Chapman.
The children of William Norton and Alice Bownest were
i. John, born at Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, May
6, 1606, minister, came to New England in 1634, and
settled at Ipswich, Massachusetts in 1636; in 1655
| succeeded the Rev. John Cotton as minister of the
First Church in Boston. His wife was named Mary.
He possibly had a daughter, although reports are
conflicting.
ii. William, ancestor of the family which settled at Ips-
wich, Massachusetts, and vicinity. He married Lucy,
daughter of Emanuel and Lucy (Winthrop) Downing,
by whom he had John (Rev.) of Hingham; Bonus,
of Ipswich, Mass., and Hampton, N. H.; Elizabeth,
married John Wainwright and Isaac Addington; and
probably William and Lucy, who died before 1694,
; without issue. Numerous descendants.
+ iii. Richard. Further record not given.
j iv. Thomas, who is stated to have married Katharine
’ Glineard, and who had Gabriel, Thomas and Anne.
v. Martha.
> vi. Mary.
Children by second wife, Dionys Cholmondeley :
49. Thomas, probably the one of Barton-le-Clay, Bedfordshire, who
married and had
i. William, baptised November 16, 1595.
ii. Alys, baptised May 7, 1600.
iii. Annys, baptised October 17, 1604.
iv. Mary, baptised January 1, 1607.
v. Thomas, buried May 18, 1619.
vi. Ann, buried November 8, 1612.
?vii. John, later the Rector of Barton-le-Clay.
50. John, probably the one buried November 20, 1632, at Streatley;
but possibly was John of Luton, possible father of George of
Salem.
51. Elizabeth.
52. Francis, identified by Albert B. Norton as the emigrant to New
Hampshire, and by others as the emigrant to Milford, Con-
necticut. However in the Essex Institute Historical Collec-
tions, vol. 17, there are published numerous wills of Nortons
resident of Middlesex, Essex and Suffolk, the abstracts of
which were obtained by James A. Emmerton and Henry F.
Waters in an endeavor to ascertain the ancestry of Francis
Norton of New Hampshire. As these records were published
in 1880, some twenty-four years after statements made by
Albert B. Norton, it is evident that these experienced genealo-
gists did not accept this putative ancestry for Francis Norton.
| 53. Hugh, buried at Streatley, Bedfordshire, September 3, 1620.
112 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
54. Daniel.
55. Phoebe, probably married Richard Allen at Streatley, Beds.,
May 7, 1628.
56. Richard, of London, probably the one who is of record as pur-
chasing property rights in Maine; signed the Visitation of |
London in 1634; arms respited for proof. The pedigrees state
that he married first, his cousin Lettice Norton, widow of
Robert Cheney and daughter of Luke Norton and Lettice
Graveley; no children are reported by this marriage. The
mother of Richard Norton’s children was Ellen Rowley, buried
24 November 1630 at St. Michael’s, Cornhill, London, daughter
of Thomas Rowley of Saffron Walden, Essex. It is evident
from parish registers however, that Ellen Rowley was the first
wife of Richard Norton, and Lettice (Norton) Cheney his
second, as the latter was having her children by Robert Cheney
baptised contemporaneously with those of Ellen (Rowley)
Norton. The children, all baptised at St. Michaels, Cornhill,
London, were:
i. John, baptised January 17, 1616, buried there January
19, 1616.
ii. George, baptised February 22, 1617, not mentioned in
the Visitation of 1634.
iii, John, baptised May 8, 1619, buried November 23, 1620.
iv. Robert, baptised April 15, 1620, not mentioned in the
Visitation of 1634.
v. Ellen, baptised December 15, 1622, buried October 21, E
1650; married June 17, 1641, Luke Cheyne of Bram- F
hanger, baptised July 24, 1621, buried January 15, ,
1637 at St. Michaels in Cornhill, London, son of
Robert and Lettice (Norton) Cheyne.
vi. Dorothy, baptised January 11, 1623, married August
18, 1643, Humphrey Bowater, merchant of St. Bennet
Sherehog.
vii. Luke, baptised June 19, 1625, living in 1634.
viii. Richard, baptised November 21, 1626, citizen and fish-
monger of London; marriage banns published March
8, 15 and 22, 1656, state that he intended to marry
Anne Hanson of Christ Church, London.
ix. John, baptised June 5, 1628, identified as the emigrant
to Branford, Connecticut. For the descendants of
John Norton of Branford, refer to an article on the
Reverend John Norton of Middletown, by Zoeth 8S.
Eldredge, which was published in The New England
Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 54, p. 53;
also Some Descendants of John Norton of Branford,
1622-1709, by Walter Whittlesey Norton. We are
not convinced by present evidence offered that the
English ancestry of the emigrant John Norton is
proved.*
x. William, baptised November 4, 1629.
30. Henry Norrox, son of Thomas Norton and Alice Cran-
mer, was born probably at London, England, in 1571; he was
thirteen years, eight months and twenty days old at the death of
* We acknowledge with thanks the permission of Mr. Charles N. Hickok, of Cleveland,
Ohio, to use his MSS. genealogies on deposit in the New Haven Colony Historical Society
at New Haven, Connecticut.
|
|
GEORGE NORTON OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 113
his father, March 10, 1583/4. Of him Manningham records in
his diary that Robert Norton had told him in February, 1601/2,
‘*Mr. Cokayne of Hertfordshire got his brother Henry by a wile
into his house, and there married him upon a pushe to a kins-
woman of his, and made a serving man serve the purpose insted
of a priest.’’
This wife may have been the Elizabeth Norton, wife of Henry
Norton, who was buried at Streatley, May 1, 1613. He married
second, at Streatley, June 26, 1613, to Sarah Lawson and was
thereafter of Stepney, Middlesex. In The Genealogical Diction-
ary of Maine and New Hampshire, part IV, by Sybil Noyes and
Walter Goodwin Davis, Henry Norton is mentioned at page 514
as the father of a son of the same name who came to Maine.
Child, by first wife :
57. Samuel, baptised March 20, 1613, buried March 26, 1613.
Child, by second wife (there were probably others) :
58. Henry, baptised November 26, 1617 at Stepney, Middlesex, came
to York, Maine, after the death of his uncle Walter Norton. A
record of his connections in Maine will be found in The Gene-
alogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, part IV, by
Sybil Noyes and Walter Goodwin Davis.
31. Rosert Norton, son of Thomas Norton and Alice Cran-
mer, born probably in London about 1575, received settlement of
the manor of Sharpenhoe from his brother Henry; was pur-
chaser with his cousin Richard Norton and others of land in
Maine. He was a resident of Marketcell (Markyate-Cell), near
Dunstable, and signed a Visitation pedigree as from that local-
ity in 1634.
He is stated to have been the only one of the children of
Thomas Norton who inherited the latter’s literary abilities. He
is presumed to have been the author of A Mathematical Appen-
dix; with an easy way to delineate Sundials; and likewise The
Gunner; shewing the whole Practice of Artillery and Artificiall
Fireworks, 1628, folio.
This promise of a literary career was terminated by his death
in the early part of 1635 (1634/5). His will, dated January
28, 1634/5, was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
on the 19th of February following.
Robert Norton married Anna Hare or Heare, daughter of
Robert. Their children were
59. Thomas, baptised at Streatley, Beds., December 10, 1605, buried
December 20, 1605.
60. Robert. baptised December 2, 1606, reported to have died with-
out issue.
4
4
114 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
61. Thomas, baptised September 15, 1609; in our opinion the immi-
grant to Guilford, Connecticut. He married in Shelton parish,
Beds., May 5, 1631, Grace Wells. Their descendants in some
part are listed in The New England Historical and Genealog-
ical Register, vol. 53, at p. 269.
62. Richard, born about 1611.
63. George, born about 1613. Probably not to be identified with the
emigrant to Salem, Massachusetts.
64. Anne, baptised October 10, 1608, married James Castle of Lon-
don before 1634.
65. Elizabeth.
35. WauTerR Norton, son of Thomas Norton and Alice Cran-
mer, was born about 1580, probably at London. He was a pro-
fessional soldier of long experience in the low countries (Neth-
erlands), was taken prisoner in the battle of Rhé in 1625, in
which his son was killed. Subsequently he is found as an immi-
grant to New England, and was a resident of Charlestown,
Massachusetts in 1630.
He was a purchaser with other of his relatives of land on the
Agamenticus river in Maine, and in 1632 was at York. His
intent was evidently to develop this property. In 1633, while
journeying to Virginia with Captain John Stone, Lieutenant
Colonel Walter Norton was murdered by the Pequots when their
ship entered the Connecticut river to trade.
The name of his son is not reported; he was evidently by his
first wife, who was Jane (Reeve) Reynolds. By his second wife
Eleanor he had a child
66. Jane, married 1, Henry Simpson; 2, Nicholas Bond.
In The Magna Charta Barons and their American Descend-
ants, by Charles H. Browning, 1898, at page 161 is given the
descent from Saher de Quincy, a surety for the Magna Charta,
to William Norton of Ipswich, Massachusetts, herein miscalled
the Rev. William Norton. In the line of descent appears Maud
de Grey, daughter of John de Grey of Ruthyn and Anne Fer-
rers, his wife. She married Sir John de Norvile, called of Nor-
ton, York; and their son is identified as John de Norton,
so-called, of Sharpenhoe, Beds. The latter is the one with whom
we have started the pedigree (ante) and who was, by our estima-
tion, born in 1440; a date which we believe we can defend.
Immediately an astonishing chronology becomes evident. If his
putative mother, Maud de Grey, was born about 1410, her father,
John de Grey, lord of Ruthyn and husband of Anne Ferrers,
died in 1323!
Further, we have seen that John Gough Nichols states that
John Norton, knight, who married a daughter of John de Grey
of Ruthyn was of Battie in Sussex, contradicting the account
.
|
|
I
.
HANNAH (FELTON) (ENDICOTT) PROCTOR 115
wherein Browning calls him of Norton in York. Without further
comment upon this fascinating bit of genealogical fiction, we
may categorically dismiss the whole as not worthy of further
consideration.
We do not wish to be misunderstood in our purpose in chal-
lenging certain of the foregoing alleged lines, or in branding
certain of them as spurious. Our primary purpose is to clear
the ground for interested and impartial investigators who are
concerned particularly with the English connections of the Norton
immigrant ancestors. If statements contained herein are incor-
rect, or if some of the lines challenged are correct after all, we
shall be very happy to acknowledge competent proof. Nothing
would please us more than to see a development of this problem
upon an accurate and constructive basis.
HANNAH (FELTON) (ENDICOTT) PROCTOR
By WINIFRED LOVERING HOLMAN, 8.B., of Watertown, Mass.
The identity of Hannah (Felton) (Endicott) Proctor has been
questioned. The proof of same is contained in a paper found in
the estate of her first husband, Samuel Endicott, viz. :
**Reed of Mr Walter philips on Accot of my cousen Samuel Endicott, in
pt for the Intrest of fourteen pownds in mony Lent him for which his father
in Law Lt Nath: ffelton was Suertye wth him for the payment of Said Sume
of 141 Twenty shillings
6 June. 1693. Twenty shillings
26 Merch. 1694. Twenty shillings
30 Merch. 1695. Twenty shillings
25. May. 1696. Twenty shillings
19. Apr. 1697. Twenty shillings
7. xbr, 1697. Twenty shillings
Reckoned wth Thorndike procter, whoe Married to the Widdow of Saml!
Endicott Deseased, this 9th December 1699 & I have Discounted the Above
sd Six pownds out of the Intrest of the fourteen pownds Above s4, weh was
from the 1t of october. 1686 to the 9th December 1699
Taken out of my booke this. 19th march, 1701-2
p W™ Browne.’’
(Essex Probate, Estate of Samuel Endicott, No. 9065.)
Briefly, Hannah Felton, baptised in Salem, Mass., 20 June
1663, married first, Samuel Endicott, and secondly, Thorndike
Proctor. She was daughter of Nathaniel Felton (about 1615-
1705), of Great Yarmouth, England, and of Salem, Mass., by his
wife, Mary, daughter of Rev. Samuel and Susanna (Treves)
Skelton. Felton made his will, 4 Oct. 1703, filed 6 Mar. 1706,
q
|
116 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
but unfortunately mentions his daughters by their first names
only; speaks of property given them at their marriage to his
two sons, John and Nathaniel, ‘‘and also to my two Daughters
Ruth and Hanna,’’ gives to his daughter Elizabeth, ‘‘solitaire
widdow,’’ to his sons John and Nathaniel, to his daughter Ruth,
‘‘and to my Daughter Hanna to each of them five shillings,’’
names sons John and Nathaniel executors. (Essex Probate.)
Skelton received his M.A. in 1615 from Clare Hall, Cambridge,
was Governor Endicott’s spiritual adviser and with the Governor
and Rev. Francis Higginson founded the First Church of Salem,
1629, where Skelton was pastor. For further data about Skelton
the reader is referred to ‘‘Colonial Clergy of New England,”’
by Weis, 1936.
- MARRIAGES IN SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
By the Rev. ABNER BAYLEY.
Contributed by OGLEesBy PavuL, Esq., of Milton, Mass.*
[The Rev. Abner Bailey or Bayley was born Jan. 15, 1715/16, married
March 27, 1745, to Mary Baldwin, and died March 10, 1798. The record of
marriages performed by him from 1740 to 1796 is presented verbatim, even
to the printing in italics of marriages of his relatives which he underlined.
His parish was originally the Second Society in Methuen, Mass. |
The Second Parish in Methuen in which the 2°¢ C"™" was gath-
ered was in a small space of Time by the running of the Line
between the Provinces taken chiefly into the Province of New
Hampshire. and the Lands and Inhabitants so taken together
with other adjacent Lands & Inhabitants was after some years
incorporated into a Township in New Hampshire by the Name
of Salem & from that Time the 2"? C™ in Methuen became the
C™ in Salem of which Abner Bayley continued Pastor—
Marriages Solemnized by Abner Bayley Pastor of the 2™' C™
in Methuen
April 3 1740 David Sanders & Priscilla Clark
Sept 28 1742 Benoni Rowel j' & Mary Young
30 Samuel Fields & Sarah Stevens
Dee 28 Abraham Annis & Mary Hilton
March 10 1742/3 Joseph Clark & Ruth Clark
May 3 1748 Joshua Bayley & Sarah Davis
June 9 John Hastings & Rebecca Kelly
July 20 John Ober j* & Anna Thorndike
* The contributor acknowledges the aid of John Insley Coddington, Esq., in reading and
checking the entries.
_ |
MARRIAGES IN SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Nov 24
Jan 5 1743/4
Feb 28
April 10 1744
March 26 1745
Aug 8
Aug 12
April 7 1746
July 15
Aug 4
Nov 6
Jan 13
March 19
April 29 1747
May 7
June 1
Oct™ 16
June 9 1748
June 16
July 7
Sept™ 20
March 9
April 17 1749
Aug 17
Aug 24
Nov 16
Feb 27 1749
April 12 1750
May 15
July 3
Aug 20
Nov 27
Dee™ 20
Dee™ 25
Jan 26
May 23 1751
June 27
Aug 6
Sept 23
Oct®™ 21
Old stile
Jan 1 1752
March 19
July 2
July 27
117
Benj* Rawlins & Martha Wheeler
Josiah Clough & Abigail Hastings
Richard Patee & Mary Clark
David Dow & Mary Brown
Oliver Kimbal & Mary Ober
Samuel Rowel & Deborah Morgan
Israel Ober & Mary Pitman
Reuben Emerson & Sarah Colburn
William Emerson & Abigail Patee
Timothy Bedel & Elisabeth Kelly
John Merril & Deborah Williams
Samuel Haseltine & Abiah Peaslee
Jonathan Morgan & Sarah Butler
John Hall & Mary Cross
Humphrey Bayley & Hannah Rust
Joseph Stuart & Margaret Thompson
Robert Cunningham & Mary M‘Neal
James Paul & Margaret Burnside
William Davidson & Sarah M°Cartney
John Tuft & Catharine Moore
Enoch Bayley & Priscilla Frie
John Lowel & Priscilla Sanders
William M*Adams & Janet Smith
Jonathan Corlis jr & Rachel Whittier
John How & Sarah Ayer
William Kelly & Sarah Beard
Daniel Dow & Rebecca Peaslee
Nathaniel Merril & Sarah Peaslee
Hugh Montgomery & Martha Bell
Nath" Greenough & Mary Atwood
Paul Duston & Elisabeth Shannon
Timothy Bedel & Dorothy Heath
Jonathan Bayley & Martha Clark
Francis Smith & Margaret Smiley
John Mores & Hannah Hazzen
Hugh Boyd & Margaret Gilmore
Josiah Hamblet & Phebe Kimbal
Jonas Hastings & Lidea Corlis
Samuel Parker & Sarah Misser
Daniel Greenough & Hannah Emerson
Joseph Sprague & Jamima Wilson
Edmund Herriman & Ann Griffin
William Leech & Judith Corning
Isaac Clough jr & Hannah Asten
David Moore & Margaret Taggirt
Capt® Richard Kelly & Judith Brown
|
|
|
118
Aug 20
Sept 28
Oct™ 30
Nov 7
Nov 16
Feb 8
May 15
Aug 2
Oct? 16
Nov 15
Feb 11
March 14
April 2
April 30
May 9
June 27
July 29
Aug 3
Nov 28
Jan 2
Jan 9
Jan 23
April 1
May 7
Oct™ 21
23
Feb 17
19
24
26
April 8
15
June 17
Oct? 14
9
Jan 20
Jan 27
Feb 3
16
24
March 8
15
22
25
April 12
THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
David Merril & Sarah Kelly
Peter Youring & Ruth Clough
John Tibbit & Mary Johnson
Jonathan Wheeler & Esther Kimbal
William Wheeler & Sarah Massey i.
1753 Reuben Dow & Lidea Jones
John Bolton & Agnes Twadel
John Corning & Miriam Crowel
Joseph Blanchard jr & Dinah Blanchard
Joshua Webster & Mary Watts
1754 Nath" Chase & Ruth Kelly
George Corning & Anna Woodbury
Joseph Pitman & Abigail Sanders
William Smiley & Sarah Robinson
Daniel Cresey & Eunice Morgan
David Corlis & Hannah Woodbury
Enoch Insley & Mary Parker
Cornelius Mausise & Hannah Collins
Ralph Cross & Abigail Heath
1755 Nathan Asten and Sarah Merril
James Chase & Abigail Kelly
Samuel Ober & Sarah Laskey
John Hall 3™ & Love Wadley 4
John Currier & Abiah Corlis
Daniel Stevens & Merriel Patee
Israel Young jun’ & Elisabeth Clark
1756 John Eatton & Abigail Peaslee
Timothy Eatton & Abigail Massey
James Hopkins & Mary Maulenahan
Mark Coen & Agnes Bolton
Moses Day & Hannah Thurston
Obadiah Duston & Abigail Clark
Joseph Hayns & Mehetebel Marsh
} Nathaniel Woodman & Anna Wheeler
Peter Carlton & Elisabeth Poor
William Fisher & Sarah Rice
1757 David M‘Cluer & Mary Dinsmore
John Balch & Mary Clough
William Woodbury & Deborah Massey
Daniel Cross & Elisabeth Baxter
Oliver Dow & Hannah Patee
Richard Young & Abigail Gatchel |
Edmund Coleby & Mary Flood |
Dennis Murphy & Sarah Todd
William Jemison & Margaret Todd
James Clement & Ann Kimbal
Benj* Balch Lovit & Rebekah Gray
25
MARRIAGES IN SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE 119
May 9
18
June 15
17
Aug 30
31
1
Oct?’ 4
5
25
Nov 17
Dee 27
Jan 5
March 23
28
April 4
April 13
18
May 92
June 15
29
July 6
11
13
24
Sep 11
21
26
Nov 9
23
5
Jan 4
11
Feb 13
22
27
April 3
4
26
May 7
15
May 30
Aug 9
Oct™ 10
William Cass & Eunice Steuart
Abraham Hicks & Sarah Matthews
Zechariah Woodbury & Hannah Corning
Zechariah Gage & Deborah Trask
Thomas Poor & Phebe Osgood
Stephen Carlton & Sarah Gage
Mores Corlis & Lidea Lancaster
Hezekiah Asten & Jerusha Marble
Joseph Hamond & Ann Wilson
Elisha Woodbury & Elisabeth Peaslee
Benj* Wheeler jun’ & Hannah Kimba)
Long jun™ Mary Sessions
Stephen Woodward & Hannah Clement
1758 Joseph Page jun’ & Abigail Asten
Alexander Gordon & Hannah Stanlee
Evan Jones & Rebeckah Ladd
Capt" John Webster & M™ Jemima Kimball
John Allin & Keturah Fuller
Jacob Willard & Lydea Balch
John Giles & Mary Corning
John Lowel jr & Mary Emerson
John Smiley & Mary Kimball
James Jones & Anna Smith
John Dinsmore & Sarah Spear
Benjamin Berry & Mary Robinson
Eliphelet Bodwel & Hannah Barker
Nathan Perly & Mehetebel Mitchel
Ce John Jones & M™ Mary Baldwin
David Burbank & Deborah Gage
Samuel Williams & Phebe Osgood
Peter Ayer & Rebekah Wheeler
John Bayley & Esther Currier
1759 Bimsley Stevens & Rebekah Foster
Ebenezer Page & Susanna Black
Thomas Franey & Jenny Con
James Ford & Sarah Swan
Ai Henesey & Sarah Murphy
John Allen & Lidea Dinsmore
Timothy Bedel & Elisabeth Merril
Samuel Huse & Mary Hoit
Joshua Corlis & Abigail Marsh
Peter Gilyonn & Mary Gordon
Benjamin Webber & Experience Bacheldor
Jeremiah Hutchins & Mehetabel Corliss
Jonathan Youring & Abigail Hodgekins
Daniel Haseltine & Abigail Clough
|
+ |
4
120
Nov 13
27
Dee 4
5
27
Jan 8
17
20
24
31
Feb 14
March 5
May 15
28
June 19
24
Sept 1
11
Oct? 13
30
Nov 9
18
Jan 7
8
Jan 13
May 7
June 9
24
July 9
Aug 27
Sep 29
Nov 19
26
Dee 15
Jan 14
Feb 4
Feb 11
16
March 11
May 26
June 1
15
Sep 23
THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
1760
1761
1761
1762
David Kimbel & Abigail Bussel
Joseph Cresey & Love Hall
John Clement & Hannah Sanders
Jerediah Patee & Hannah Merril
Wyman Clough & Sarah Hall
Joshua Heath & Dolly Asten
Francis Dinsmore & Elisabeth Mitchel
Job Whipple & Ruth Tarbel
Benjamin Day & Mary Chadwick
John Lowel junt & Martha Hastings
Elisha Woodbury & Sarah Johnson
Job Dow & Hannah Patee
Anthony Emery & Naomi McIntire
Moses Merril & Hannah Grenough
Joseph Danfee & Mary Cook
James Crummy & Sarah Poor
John Chase & Anna Bedel
Micajah Morril & Priscilla Whittaker
Thomas Burnside & Susanna M°Gregore
Obadiah Morss & Lidea Merrick
Benjamin Cotton & Abigail Morgan
David Mackie & Eunice Smith
Richard Duston & Sarah Chase
Joseph Bussel & Sarah Amy
Amos Dow & Elisabeth Wheeler
Jonathan Webster & Rebekah Hall
Robert Young & Elisabeth Dinsmore
Benjamin Little & Mary Hazzen
Alexander Hodgdon & Lydia Shackford
John Deadman & Mary Masury
John Lebusquet & Sarah Brooks
John Balch & Susannah Lovejoy
Richard Cresey & Hannah Woodbury
Samuel Ellinwood & Sarah Giles
Obadiah Duston & Ruth Morss
John Ellinwood & Elisabeth Woodbury
Timothy Perkins & Hannah Trowbridge
John Boiden & Sarah Frye
Joseph Hayns & Anna Heath
Joshua Morgan & Hannah Reddington
John Swan & Abiah Swan
John Rowel & Mary Bedel
John Chapman & Miriam Nutting
John Carlton & Tabatha French
James Carlton & Elisabeth Currier
Benj* Emery & Molley Rawlins
Timothy Kimbal & Molley Head
=
4
MARRIAGES IN SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE 121
Nov 3°30 William Clough & Abigail Bayley
Dect 3 Isaac Foster & Anna Gray
30 Hezediah Woodbury & Mary Filbrook
April 21 1763 Timothy Ayer & Elisabeth Massey
May 17 Andrew Simonds & Ruth Bennet
26 James Clough & Mehetebel Secombe
Aug 13 Alexander Watt & Hannah Boden
25 Ebenezer Pierce & Lidea Brown
Sep 13 Jacob Annis & Molly Hagget
Nov 25 Jonathan Abbot & Mehetebel Abbot
Dec 6 Isaac Thorndike & Elisabeth Ober
Rev’ John Page & Mary Stevens
Jan 12 1764 Richard Cresey & Susanna Eatton
Feb 2 David Merril & Joanna Bayley
7 Michal Kimbal & Elisabeth Runnels
16 Thomas Runnels & Phebe Stickney
17 Barber Laslee & Judith Wilson
May 2 Gurselus [?] Cowing & Anna Vinall
19 David Wilkins & Margaret Wilkins
31 John Page & Dolly Wheeler
July 12 Moody Morss & Hannah Peaslee
Aug 14 William White & Mary Baylee
Sept" 6 Abiel Aston j' & Joanna Woodbury
Nov 20 Sampson Spaulding & Experience Merril
. = Daniel Spaulding & Phebe Duston
Nov’ 25 Robert Sinclair & Jannet Stevens
April 2 1765 Richard Dow j' & Mary Sanders
3 Dennis Woods & Bridget Cary
May 27 Israel Kinney & Hannah Balch
July 30 Richard Nutting & Mehetebel Webb
Aug 5 William Wilkins & Sarah Bancroft
22 John Giddens Bayley & Abigail Little
Sep 10 Richard Kimbal & Lois Patee
30 John Orne & Bridget Parker
Oct 24 Isaac Kimbal & Bette Hall
29 Amos Merril & Lidea Giles
Timothy Merril & Mehetebel Bayley
30 Ebenezer Herrick & Phebe Carlton
[Daniel Easty & Hannah Towns
[To be continued ]
|
NOTES
PORTER. Mr. John Insley Coddington has contributed the
following suggestions regarding the Porter article in the July
GENEALOGIST, which have been submitted to Miss Winifred Lov-
ering Holman and approved by her for publication.
Page 50, line 8: Anne White baptised ‘‘there’’ 13 July 1600.
She was baptised at Shalford on the date stated, not at Messing,
as might seem to be implied.
Page 52, line 38. The baptism of Mary Stanley should be
corrected to 2 Feb. 1633/4.
Page 52, line 2. Anna Porter, daughter of John Porter and
Anna his wife, baptised at Messing 4 Nov. 1638. Col. J. L.
Chester’s London Marriage Licences, column 1077, contains the
licence of John Porter, gent., of Messing, Essex, bachelor, 25,
and Anne Waller, of same, spinster, 19. to be married at All
Hallows in the Wall, London, 22 Nov. 1637. It would seem
possible that these were the parents of the child Anna who was
baptised at Messing a year later, rather than John and Anna
(White) Porter, who already had a daughter Anna living, and
all of whose other children born in England were baptised at
Felsted, not at Messing.
PRUDDEN. Mr. John Insley Coddington favors us with the
following additions to Prudden entries from English parish
registers, overlooked by Mr. Peck’s English searcher :
Parish Register of Luton
Baptisms
1614 Judith d. of Peter Prudden, March 17 [1614/5].
1618 Helen d. of Peter Prudden, Apr. 8.
Parish Register of King’s Walden, co. Herts
Baptisms
1615 Elizabeth d. James, Dee. 17.
1620 Thomas s. Edward, Oct. 11.
1623 Rose d. Edmund, June 4.
Parish Register of Streatley, co. Bedford
Baptisms
1627 Frances daughter of Richard Pruddon, July 4.
Marriages
1641 William Lake and Elizabeth Prudden, Jan. 17 [1641/2].
In the marriage record of Edward Prudden at Luton on July
24, 1606, the name of his bride was spelled Anis Carpenter. The
marriage record of Hugh Ingram to Mildred Prudden on Dee.
2, 1619, states that they were married by licence, but Mr. Peck
4
_
NOTES 123
omitted these words from the record intentionally, because he
had followed up this clue and ascertained that Bedfordshire
licences for this period are missing, and he wished to save others
the trouble of pursuing a clue which would lead to nothing
tangible.
‘Since the Prudden article was set in type, Mr. S. Allyn Peck
received additional data from England, as follows:
Lincoln District Probate Registry
Lincoln Consistory Court Administrations 1625, B. I. 131
Bond in £24 of Margaret Prudden of Luton, co. Bed., widow, and John
Carter of the same, draper, that the said Margaret will well and truly
administer the goods of Peeter Prudden late of Luton, deceased, her late
husband. Dated 4 July, 1 Charles.
Inventory of the goods of Peeter Prudden of Luton, co. Bedf., glouer,
late deseast made and proved by Thomas Brigunt [signed Thomas Brigg-
man], Barnard Day, Robard Longe, and others, 25 June 1625. Sum total,
£12-4-0. Exhibited at Beerton, 4 July 1625.
Probate and Administration Book x, folio 95d
on 4 July 1625, at Beerton, administration of the goods of Peter Prudden
late of Luton was granted to Margaret Prudden, widow and relict.
The above furnishes the given name of the wife of this Peter
Prudden of Luton, which was lacking in the pedigree as pub-
lished.
Also, Mr. Peck has received from England an abstract of the
will of Thomas Purdun, of Hexton, co. Herts, 1522, which may
or may not have a connection with the problem of Thomas Prud-
den, of Kings Walden, co. Herts, who is referred to under the
generation number III in the outline pedigree published at the
end of his article. Hexton is no great distance from Kings Wal-
den, and both lie on the county boundary between Bedford and
Hertford. However, Thomas Purdun, of Hexton, makes no men-
tion whatever of Kings Walden in his will, and it is impossible
to determine without documentary proof when families of the
same name in the same locality became separated from the main
line. His will, dated Nov. 15, 1522, and proved Dee. 15, 1522,
in the St. Albans Arch. Court: Walingford, 183, mentions his
son Thomas, his daughter Alice, his wife Joan, and his brother
William. Thomas Prudden, of Kings Walden, III of the outline
pedigree, had, according to the Luton Gild Register, wives
Margaret and Jone. And so it might possibly be that Thomas
Prudden, of Kings Walden, removed to Hexton, and did not
marry a third wife named Christian. If this is so, then the
parentage of Thomas Prudden, of Kings Walden, who married
Christian, is somewhat uncertain, though the presumption would
be that he was a son of William Prudden (II, i), who made no
will. The approximate dates of birth give some difficulty in
regard to such a conclusion.
a
BOOK REVIEWS
GiuBert H. Doane, B.A., Book Review Editor
[Those desiring reviews should send a copy of book to Mr. Doane, 2006
Chadbourne Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin, marked ‘‘for review.’’ Books
sent by inadvertence to the publication address of the magazine cannot be
reviewed locally, and will be returned or forwarded to Mr. Doane upon
receipt of postage. ]
The Hickok Genealogy; descendants of William Hickocks, of Farmington,
Connecticut, with ancestry of Charles Nelson Hickok. Compiled by Charles
Nelson Hickok. Rutland, Vt., Tuttle Pub, Co., 1938. 469 p. (Appendix,
1939. 15 p.) $12.00. Obtainable from the author, 1300 Leader Bldg.,
Cleveland, Ohio,
Three hundred copies of this well printed and substantially
bound genealogy have been issued. The end papers of the vol-
ume consist of carefully drawn plats of Mattatuck (i.e. Water-
bury), Conn., and the town of Bedford, Pa.
It contains an account of ten generations of the descendants
of William Hickocks, who settled in Farmington, Conn., and
died there soon after 1645. Mr. Hickok prints evidence, in his
foreword, which clearly shows that this William Hickocks, was
not identical with the William bapt. in Stratford, Eng., in 1609,
as has been sometimes stated; and expresses his belief that he
was from London. Lacking positive evidence, however, he wisely
begins his record with the settlement in Farmington. This
record occupies the first 259 pages of the volume. Pp. 260-446
are devoted to the ancestry of the compiler, and contain data
on the Anderson (of Pa.), Baldwin, Beach, Belden, Benedict,
Bird, Bouton, Clark (of New Haven), Clark (of Stratford),
Espy (of Pa.) Fogel (of Pa.) Hartley (of Pa.), Hoyt, Huber,
Hutter, Knap, Lockwood, Watson, Wilson (of Allentown, Pa.),
Wood and Woods, and other families. There is an index of
names and of places (p. 453-469).
The work appears to be competently done. References are
cited at the end of the account of each family, dates check, and
few assumptions are made and those are clearly noted as such.
In the pamphlet comprising the appendix abstracts of Farm-
ington land records are given. This taste of documentary ab-
stracts makes this reviewer wish that Mr. Hickok could have
gone to the sources more frequently, and seen original wills, land
evidences, and church records. But to do that in a comprehen-
sive genealogy of this size means a heavy expense in addition
to the printing bill.
Occasionally a slip of the pen has made for confusion. For
instance, on p. 65, in the account of Jeremiah Hickok (no. 188)
it is stated that he ‘‘lived in St. Albans, Vt., and in 1753 re-
|
BOOK REVIEWS 125
moved to Sheffield, Mass.’’ St. Albans, Vt., wasn’t settled until
1788, hence Jeremiah could hardly have lived there prior to his
removal to Sheffield, Mass. The exact meaning isn’t clear.
Additional data about Benjamin Hickock (no. 301, p. 87-8)
can be found in the Memorial to Revolutionary Soldiers, Clinton,
N. Y., reviewed elsewhere in this issue of THe AMERICAN GENE-
ALoGist. On p. 44 of that pamphlet his death date is given, 5
Sept. 1845, the name of his 2nd wife, and a reference to his will.
The Descendants of John Conard of Loudoun County, Virginia, by Amy
Metealf Bowen. Copyright, 1939. xii, 91 pp. (Mimeographed, in stiff
paper covers). ($5.00. Obtainable from the author, 1004 Gorgas Circle,
Fort Sam Houston, Texas.)
Mrs. Bowen (she is an M.D. in her own right and is the author
of a treatise in Chinese on bacteriology for nurses) has published
a fine type of family record which must be of great interest to
her relatives, and one which will be of value to future genealo-
gists of the Conard family. The preliminary pages are devoted
mainly to a comprehensive name index. Pp. 1-4 give the origin
of the family, deriving it from Thones Kunders, a Quaker, head
of one of the thirteen German families who settled Germantown,
Pa., in 1683-4. On p. 4 there is a skeleton pedigree of the pater-
nal descent for Nancy Gregg (1802-1847), the wife of Anthony
Conard (1799-1851). Pp. 4-33 are devoted to the record of the
descendants of this couple. Pp. 33-53 contain transcripts of let-
ters written by various members of this family. And pp. 54-91
contain records and genealogies of the Conard family in Lou-
doun County, Va.
The work has been carefully and meticulously done. Few
assumptions are made and the reasons for those are given and
seem to be conclusive. Few, if any, lines are left dangling, as it
were, so it is easy to imagine the persistence with which Mrs.
Bowen has gathered her material.
In her preface, Mrs. Bowen admits that she has not fully ecor-
related the material to be found in the last 37 pages of the book.
She has printed it to make it accessible for others interested in
this family, and for anyone who may undertake a comprehensive
genealogy of the descendants of Thones Kunders. (Inciden-
tally, the founder of the Cunard Line, Sir Samuel Cunard, Bart.,
was one of those descendants.) This material consists largely of
abstracts of county records, land evidences, wills, inventories,
administrations, ete.
Memorial to Revolutionary Soldiers, Clinton, New York; a historical
research concerning Kirkland Avenue Cemetery, formerly known as Water
Street Cemetery or The Old Burying Ground, by Oneida Chapter, N.S.
D.A.R., no, 49, Utica, New York. Historian, Mrs, Isabelle Bailey Cook
Smith. [Copyright, 1938] 62 pp. (Obtainable from Oneida Chapter,
Daughters of the American Revolution, Utica, New York.)
—
126 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
This is a carefully annotated list of Revolutionary soldiers
buried in the old cemetery in Clinton, N. Y., whose names are
listed on a memorial marker erected by the Oneida Chapter of
the D.A.R., supplemented by lists of Revolutionary soldiers of
proven service who are said to have been buried there but are
actually buried elsewhere, of men who were possibly Revolution-
ary soldiers and whose remains have been removed to other
cemeteries, of men said to have been soldiers but no proof of
service found or too young, and of men buried there about whom
little information has been found. The annotations are carefully
documented and references cited, thus their value is greatly
increased. There is a good index.
It happens that your reviewer can supplement the data about
Benjamin Hickeox (p. 44-5) by means of the Hickok Genealogy
reviewed in this issue of THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST. This
Benjamin is identical with no. 301 (p. 87-8) in the Hickok Gene-
alogy, and was born in Guilford, Conn., 8 Oct. 1762. His first
wife, the mother of ten of his children, was Hannah Clark,
daughter of Elisha and Hannah (Hopkins) Clark of Harwich,
Mass.
Mary Hungerford, wife of Thomas Hart, Jr., (p. 24), was the
daughter of Benjamin* and Jemima‘ (Hungerford) Hungerford.
She was born in Bristol, Conn., in July 1751, and married
Thomas Hart 19 Mar. 1772.
Inscriptions in Bell Branch and Mount Hazel Cemeteries, Redford Town-
ship, Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, supplemented by data showing
family connections. By Marjoria Norris Beavis (Mrs. Clarence L. Beavis).
Detroit, 1939. (Obtainable from Mrs. C. L. Beavis, 8888 Mendota Avenue,
Detroit, Mich.)
This is a carefully compiled and clearly printed record of the
inscriptions to be found in these two cemeteries in Redford Town-
ship, Wayne Couniy, Mich. Mrs. Beavis has supplemented the
data found in the inscriptions with other records obtained from
Bibles and descendants of the individuals buried there, and has
thus increased the value of her work. There is an index to the
inscriptions, which are arranged by lot and location in the ceme-
teries, but, unfortunately, not to the supplementary data sup-
plied by Mrs. Beavis. A plat of the two cemeteries, carefully
drawn by Mr. Beavis, form a supplement to the pamphlet and
is attached to the inside of the back cover.
The publication of cemetery records is to be encouraged, espe-
cially when the inscriptions are carefully annotated and supple-
mentary data is included. Copying inscriptions is a pleasant and
profitable avocation for the genealogist, for much can be learned
and gleaned from old cemeteries.
Ralegh’s Last Adventure, Bailie’s allegation of piratical intent refuted
by unpublished depositions, by C. L’Estrange Ewen. [London] Printed
for the author, March, 1938. 1/.
QUERIES AND ANSWERS 127
Sir Walter Ralegh’s Interpretation of the Lex Mercatoria, by C. L’Es-
trange Ewen. [London] Printed for the author, August, 1938. 6d.
Robert Ratcliffe, 5th Earl of Sussex: the Witchcraft Allegations in his
Family, by C. L’Estrange Ewen. [London] Printed for the author, 1938,
(price not given)
(These three pamphlets are obtainable from the author, 103 Gower
Street, London, W. C. 1, England.)
Mr. C. L’Estrange Ewen has written one of the outstanding
books on surnames, A History of Surnames of the British Isles
(London, 1931), and is a recognized authority in that field. He
has also compiled a history of The Families of Ewen of East
Anglia and the Fenland (1929), so he is a genealogist as well.
These three pamphlets, and other short monographs from his
pen, are the results of searching in the archives of England. One
suspects that Mr. Ewen became interested in the contents of some
documents which he stumbled upon in the search for material
for his larger books, and which interested him so much that he
followed up the clues which he found. They show the results
of a sound historical method and are excellent examples of that
method—carefully documented and fully supplied with footnotes
and citations of sources. They are, however, of little interest
to American genealogists.
QUERIES AND ANSWERS
Edited by Puiuip M. Smirnu, B.A., of Washington, D. C.
REGULATIONS
This department is open to subscribers without cost. The Librarian of any
library that subscribes will be allowed one query per volume.
Non-subscribers must enclose $1.00 for each fifty words, or fraction thereof.
All querists should enclose letter postage for each individual query. All
queries should be short and definite.
Answers received will be mailed directly and promptly to querists, and will
be published if they are of general interest.
Letters to be forwarded to querists must be sent in unsealed, stamped
envelopes, accompanied by number of query and its signature. Right
is reserved to print any information contained in the communication
to be forwarded.
All communications should be sent at least nine weeks prior to date of
publication to Philip M. Smith, P. O. Box 424, Benjamin Franklin
Station, Washington, D. C.
QUERIES
156 (a) BELL. Wanted :—Name of husband of Abigail Bell,
born Stamford, Conn., Sept. 28, 1717, dau. of Lieut. Jonathan
and Deborah (Harris) Bell. Did she marry Matthew Brink, of
Minisink Valley, N. Y.?
(b) CHARTER. Wanted :—Parents of Charlotte Charter, of
Enfield, Conn., also date of birth. She m. 1787 Jonathan Pease,
of Glastonbury, Conn., b. 1766.—L. C. G.
128 THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
QUERY WITH REWARD OF FIFTY DOLLARS.
O’DRISCOLL-TAYLOR. Denis O’Driscoll (son of Cornelius
and Honora O’Driscoll) was b. at Clonakilty, co. Cork, Ireland,
ca. 1785; came to America ca. 1809 ; naturalized citizen at Phila-
delphia 11 Feb. 1811; cordwainer; resided in Philadelphia till
1834, when he removed to Washington, D. C., where he d. 6 June
1849. He m. at St. Paul’s P.E. Church, Philadelphia, 18 Feb.
1812, ELIZABETH TAYLOR. This marriage was repeated at
St. Joseph’s R.C. Church, Philadelphia, 28 May 1813, and Eliza-
beth (Taylor) O’Driscoll was bapt. a Roman Catholic. The bapt.
record does not state what her religion had been previously.
After Denis’s death in 1849, Elizabeth went to Leonardtown,
Md., where her two youngest daughters were teaching school.
She was there at the Census of 1850, and stated therein that she
was aged 63, and had been born in Delaware. This statement is
confirmed by her surviving children, who stated in the Census of
1880 that their mother was b. in Delaware. Elizabeth (Taylor)
O’Driscoll returned to Washington, and d. there 16 April 1853,
‘‘in her sixty-eighth year’’ according to the Washington National
Intelligencer of 18 Apr. 1853. Their children were (1) Cornelius
Francis O’Driscoll, stereotyper, b. at Philadelphia 3 July 1813,
d. at Cincinnati 11 Dee. 1863, m. at Philadelphia 30 Jan. 1844
Eliza Eddowes, and had 8 children; (2) Honora O’Driscoll, a
nun of the Order of Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul
(in religion Sister Polyearp), b. at Philadelphia 26 March 1815,
d. at the R.C. Orphan Asylum, San Francisco, Cal., 9 Feb. 1896;
(3) John O’Driscoll, printer, b. at Philadelphia 4 Aug. 1817, was
at Indianapolis in 1874, after which all trace of him is lost; (4)
Mary Anastasia O’Driscoll, a nun of the Order of the Visitation
(in religion Sister Mary Gonzaga), b. at Philadelphia 27 Dec.
1819, d. at the Visitation Convent, Brooklyn, N. Y., 6 June 1890;
(5) Elizabeth O’Driscoll, school-teacher, b. at Philadelphia ca.
1823, d. unm. at Mobile, Ala., 22 July 1884; (6) Margaret
O’Driscoll, school-teacher, b. at Philadelphia ca. 1825; d. unm.
at Green Cove Springs, Fla., in Aug. 1883; (7) Daniel C.
O’Driscoll, printer, b. at Philadelphia ca. 1828, d. unm. at Cin-
cinnati 23 Jan. 1864.
A reward of $50 will be paid by the querist to the first person
who, on or before 1 July 1940, submits satisfactory proof of the
parentage of Elizabeth (Taylor) O’Driscoll, who was apparently
born in Delaware about 1786-7.
John I. Coddington.
|
|
|
| |
|
GENEALOGISTS
MARTHA KNOWLES COLLINS | MEREDITH B. COLKET, JR.
Assisted by MARGARET S. RACE
The Garde Hotel, Hartford, Connecticut
Genealogical and Historical Research
Research undertaken anywhere | Address: 15 North Wyoming Avenue,
Rates reasonable. References if desired Ardmore, Pennsylvania
Specialist in pre-American ancestry,
Colonial biography and genealogy
ANNOUNCEMENTS—ADVERTISEMENTS
WANTED: Information regarding location of letters, documents,
portraits and other original material relating to MAJOR-GENERAL
ISRAEL PUTNAM (1718-1790). This is sought for publication.
Address: Mrs. Jupson B. Root, 33 Tredeau Street, Hartford, Conn.
REWARDS OFFERED
Until January 1, 1940, $20.00 will be paid to the first person who
supplies evidence: that Daniel Chatterton of New York City (born in
the 1790’s) was son of Abraham Chatterton by his wife Sarah Requa;
another $20.00 for proof of the parentage of the said Abraham Chatter-
ton, who undoubtedly belonged to the William-Michael Chatterton
family of Westchester County; and another $20.00 for the parentage of
Mary Ann (born around 1800), wife of the said Daniel Chatterton.
Daniel Chatterton died before vital statistics were kept in New
York City ; death certificates of some of his children have been examined.
Neither Daniel nor his putative father Abraham appears in the New
York probate or land records.
Donatp L.
Box 3032, Westville Station,
New Haven, Conn.
|
|
—
MRS. JULIA E. C. BRUSH
7 Terrace Place, Danbury, Oonn.
Genealogist and Researcher
Family Histories Prepared
U. 8S. Census and Pension Records Searched
Manuscript Collections
MERTON TAYLOR GOODRICH, M.A.
P. O. Box 98, Keene, N. H.
Genealogist |
Compiler of Family Trees and Genealogies |
Over 25 years’ experience
Originator of the 4 American _Ancestor Album |
WINIFRED LOVERING HOLMAN, S.B.
89 Winsor Avenue, Watertown District
Boston, Massachusetts
Genealogist and Biographer
Compiler of Burton and Remick Genealogies
and co-compiler of the Bullen Genealogy
WALTER E. CORBIN
16 North Maple St., Florence, Mass.
Genealogical Research
Hampshire County Records a Specialty
Land—Probate—Chureh— Vital
Over 26,000 Cemetery Records
MARY LOVERING HOLMAN
89 Winsor Avenue, Watertown District
Boston, Massachusetts
Genealogist
magiter of Clement, Coney, Scott Genealogies
~ neestry of Charles Stinson Pillsbury and
John Sargent Pillsbury and co-compiler of the
Bullen Genealogy
Genealogy of the Descendants of
JONATHAN MURRAY of Guilford, Conn.,
is in course of compilation by
W. B. MURRAY
4616 Prospect Road, Peoria, Illinois
Correspondence Invited
MISS SYBIL NOYES
Care of Maine Historical Society,
Portland, Maine
MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND ESSEX
COUNTY, MASS., LINES
Box 345, Manchester, Vermont
GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH IN |
Vermont; New Hampshire; Western Mass.; |
|
|
MRS. GRACE W. W. REED
|
Albany and Vicinity
| Bpecializes in original research.
H. MINOT PITMAN, A.B., LL.B.
Genealogist
88 Summit Ave., Bronxville, N. Y.
Verifying Gen
Formerly Editor of New York Genealogical
and Biographical Record
LILA RUSSELL JAMES RONEY
Fellow of the New York Genealogical &
Biographical Society
Papers pre-
pared for all Patriotic Societies.
Oharges only for completed records; no charge
for preliminary investigation.
122 East 58th Street, New York, N. Y.
MRS. MARY J. SIBLEY, Ph.D.
101 University Place, Syracuse, N. Y.
Genealogist and Researcher
Compiler of “Descent of the Southworth
Family from Charlemagne and Alfred”
State, County and Local Records Searched
Lineages and Family Histories Compiled
Reasonabl
e
HELEN L. STARK
108 Stark Avenue
Penn Yan, N. Y.
Unpublished Records
of Yates County, N. Y.
PHILIP MACK SMITH
P. O. Box 424, Benjamin Franklin Station,
Washington, D. O.
Historical and Genealogical Research
National Archives; Library of Congress
Maryland and Virginia Records
MRS. JAMES T. WATTS
514 Nineteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. O.
Genealogist
Census and Pension Records
|
|
SS
sss
|
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11